Disposed

Smt. Indra Seth Wife of Late Shri Natvar Lal Seth v. Mahaveer Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Tikam Chand Jain - Bhainsa

Rajasthan HC12 Apr 2019SAW/627/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition challenging a Rent Tribunal order that dismissed an application under Section 21(3)(h) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 due to abuse of process in taking excessive adjournments to cross-examine the landlord without concluding it.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the appeal and directed the Rent Tribunal to dispose of the main case within three months and decide all applications together.

Smt. Indra Seth Wife of Late Shri Natvar Lal Seth Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 627/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B . Civil Writ Petition No.4127/2019

¶5

Smt. Indra Seth Wife Of Late Shri Natvar Lal Seth, Resident Of 19, Anasagar, Link Road, Ajmer

¶6

Smt. Saroj Seth Wife Of Shri Nageen Das Seth, Resident Of 19, Anasagar, Link Road, Ajmer.

¶7

Lalit Kumar Son Of Late Shri Natvar Lal Seth, Resident Of 19, Anasagar Link Road, Ajmer C/o M/s. Kinni Fibre Glass, Sameermal Bhainsa Compound, Prithviraj Marg, Ajmer.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mahaveer Chand Jain Son Of Late Shri Tikam Chand Jain - Bhainsa, Resident Of Paras Mansion, Near Suraj Mansion, Anand Nagar, Ajmer.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Shri Alok Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶14

Judgment

¶15

12/04/2019

¶16

(PER HON’BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J.)

¶17

This appeal has been filed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 13.3.2019, by which the writ petition of the appellants has been dismissed.

¶18

The appellants in the writ petition challenged the order dated 5.1.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, dismissing their application

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-627/2019]

¶21

filed under Section 21(3)(h) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same arguments, which he advanced before the learned Single Judge that the Tribunal has erred in law in closing the right of cross examination of the appellants. The impugned order be therefore set aside.

¶23

This case is a classic example of how the right of cross examination and process of the Court can be abused at the instance of unscrupulous litigants. The facts of the case are eye opener. It is evident from the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant-tenant availed as many as 9 dates from 8.9.2016 to 18.5.2018 seeking time to cross examine the respondent-landlord on his affidavit. Even though the respondent-landlord was present in Court on 20.6.2018, 28.6.2018 and 30.6.2018, yet the counsel for the appellants did not cross examine him. The cross examination of respondent commenced on 25.7.2016, but could not be concluded even upto 1.11.2018, the date when the counsel for the appellants cross examined the respondent from 3.50 pm to 4.50 pm, in addition to cross examination on 7.9.2018, which commenced at 2.00 pm and continued upto 4.40 pm. Further opportunities were accorded for cross examination on 28.9.2018 and 12.10.2018, yet the cross examination remained incomplete. It is in this background that the learned court below by order dated 12.10.2018 granted last opportunity to the counsel for the appellants to conclude the cross examination. Even then the learned Presiding Officer of the Rent Tribunal permitted the counsel for the appellants to cross examine

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SAW-627/2019]

¶26

the respondent further on 1.11.2018 from 3.50 pm to 4.50 pm, still the learned counsel did not conclude the cross examination.

¶27

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.1,000, which in our opinion is though on lower side, but without enhancing the amount of costs, considering the mandate of the Act for conclusion of the proceedings, which is summary in nature, within 240 days, we direct the Rent Tribunal to positively dispose of the main case within three months from the date next fixed before it. If the appellants further files any applications in between, the Rent Tribunal shall decide all such applications for consideration together with main case, rather than deciding such applications in between.

¶28

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

A copy of this order be sent to the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer for compliance.

¶30

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶31

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),Acting CJ

¶32

RAVI SHARMA /94

Smt. Indra Seth Wife of Late Shri Natvar Lal Seth v. Mahaveer Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Tikam Chand Jain - Bhainsa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indra Seth Wife of Late Shri Natvar Lal Seth v. Mahaveer Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Tikam Chand Jain - Bhainsa

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

Vishal Kaushik Son of Shri Pitambar Dutt Vs Union of India

Paresh Choudhary Son of Shri Laxman Singh Choudhary Vs Union of India

Arvind Khaitan S/O Shri Bajrang Lal Khaitan Vs Union of India

Hanuman Singh S/O Shri Suraj Singh B/C Kothyari Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Suresh Kumar Son of Hoshiyar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Khalid Ahmed Ghilan Amran S/O Shri Ahmed Ghilan Amran Vs the State of Rajasthan