Dismissed

Rashida @ Raseeda v. Shahida Bano

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2016CW/5321/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Rent Tribunal's dismissal of a tenant's application to amend a reply to an eviction petition. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the application was based on delay and irrelevant facts.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-tenant directed to pay Rs. 20,000 costs; Tribunal directed to decide eviction petition within four months.

Rashida @ Raseeda Vs Shahida Bano — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

Smt. Rashida @ Raseeda Vs. Smt. Shahida Bano (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5321/2014)

¶3

Date: August 03, 2016.

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶5

Mr. J.K. Yogi, for the petitioner.

¶6

BY THE COURT:

¶7

Heard counsel for the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter the tenant') and perused the impugned order dated 21-3-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter the Rent Tribunal') whereby the tenant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of reply to the eviction petition has been dismissed.

¶8

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition was filed by the tenant in the year 2014, even while the reply to eviction petition was filed by him in the year 2009, after a delay of five years. Aside of aforesaid, the Tribunal found that the application was based on facts which were in the knowledge of the tenant at the time of reply being filed and therefore there was no justifiable cause for entertaining the application for amendment. Further the application was based on facts not relevant to the determination of the issue in the eviction petition.

¶9

¶10

I am of the considered view that reasons recorded in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal are based on objective consideration of facts before it. The application for amendment of reply to eviction petition by the tenant was a recourse to delay the disposal of the eviction petition. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in its discretion is neither vitiated by any jurisdictional error or perversity.

¶11

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. And

¶12

the Tribunal is directed to decide the eviction petition pending before it within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Adjournment in the matter shall not be granted without just cause, and if so, by a reasoned order on a proper application being filed to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶13

The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of

¶14

this order to the Tribunal concerned.

¶15

arn/

¶16

¶17

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶18

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Rashida @ Raseeda v. Shahida Bano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashida @ Raseeda v. Shahida Bano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuveer Singh and Ors. Vs Narendra Singh and Ors.

Smt Guddi Devi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Saini and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Raghuveer Singh and Others Vs Gyarsi Lal and Others

Bharat Singh Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Ghanshyam Vs Amar Singh and Others