Dismissed

Mohammad Umar v. Anwar Husain and Anr.

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2018CW/3782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, in a writ petition, dismissed the landlord's appeal against the Rent Tribunal's order rejecting the claim to produce a Nikah-nama document during cross-examination. The Court held that introducing the document after ten years was not perverse and the tribunal's supervision under Article 227 was not justified.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner-landlord's challenge to the Rent Tribunal's order was dismissed; the order dated 18-1-2018 was upheld.

Mohammad Umar Vs Anwar Husain and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3782/2018)

¶5

Mohammad Umar Son of Shri Hazi Ajeemuddeen, by Caste Musalman, Aged About 72 Years, Resident of 2946, Phoota Khurra, Chaukari Ramchandraji, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner-Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anwar Husain Son of Late Mohammad Husain, Resident of 1420 Badi Masjid, Near Rehmaniya, Near Suraj Modi Ki Dharmshala, Chaukari Ghatgate, Jaipur.

¶9

Smt. Basiran Wife of Late Mohammad Husain, by Caste Musalman, Resident of 1420 Badi Masjid, Near Rehmaniya, Near Suraj Modi Ki

¶10

----Non-petitioners-Defendants

Date of Order:

February 23, 2018.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶15

Mr. Rajesh Moodia, for the petitioner.

¶16

BY THE COURT :

¶17

The petitioner-landlord (hereafter the landlord') has challenged the order dated 18-1-2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5 Jaipur Metropoitan, Rent Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal') rejecting his claim for bringing on record the Nikah-nama dated 11-4-1945 by putting it to the respondent tenant in his cross examination.

¶18

Heard counsel for the landlord and perused the impugned

¶19

¶20

order dated 18-1-2018.

¶21

The Rent Tribunal under its impugned order has noted that the eviction petition was filed in the year 2005 under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter `the Act of 2001'). Neither in the eviction petition nor in the rejoinder to the reply thereto filed by the tenant or even during his own examination the landlord had adverted to the Nikah nama dated 11-4-1945. The Rent Tribunal also noted that the Nikha nama dated 11-4-1945 was admittedly not executed in presence of the respondent tenant and had little relevance to the issues in the eviction petition before it. The Rent Tribunal further held that if the said nikah-nama was introduced in the eviction proceedings at the belated stage of the respondent tenant's cross examination it would be to his prejudice for not being able to put any question to the petitioner landlord with regard to the said document.

¶22

Heard. Considered.

¶23

Proceedigns under the Act of 2001 in terms of Section 15(5) are required to be ordinarily completed within 240 days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party. In the instant case even the petition is pending for the last over ten years. In terms of Section15(1) of the Act of 2001 all documents should have been filed by the landlord along with the eviction petition, but that was not so

¶24

¶25

done. Nor in fact any averment with regard to document in question even made in the eviction petition or in the rejoinder to the reply of the petition. In the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that nothing perverse or patently illegal vitiate the exercise of discretion by the Rent Tribunal in disallowing the petitioner landlord in producing a document in the proceedings over ten years after the filing of the eviction petition.

¶26

In the facts obtaining, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 18-1-2018 as has been passed by the Rent Tribunal does not warrant interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

The petition is therefore dismissed.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/

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

¶32

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Mohammad Umar v. Anwar Husain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Umar v. Anwar Husain and Anr.

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

Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs State and Ans

Mukesh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banwari Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mamta Devi and Ors. Vs Prakash Meena and Ors.