A.U. Finance India Private Ltd And Ors vs Madhulata Pokharna

This petition is directed against order dated 12.7.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No.48/17, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner for local investigation to ascertain the factum of possession over the disputed premises, has been dismissed.

The respondent preferred a petition under Section 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner from a rented premises. The petition was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur vide order dated 8.3.17. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 20.2.18. Thereafter, the respondent preferred yet another petition under Section 18 of the Act for recovery of arrear of rent quantified at Rs.7,29,309/-. The application is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, stating that the premises had already been vacated by it on 10.8.15 and therefore, the petition filed seeking recovery of rent is baseless.

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-company preferred an application stating that it is not in possession of the disputed premises and therefore, the factual position at the site needs to be ascertained by appointing Commissioner. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-company had already handed over the possession of the disputed premises to the respondent in presence of her husband on 10.8.15 and therefore, she is not entitled for the arrear of rent as claimed. It is submitted that the respondent has put her lock on the premises and presently, she is in possession thereof and therefore, so as to ascertain the factum of possession, it is absolutely necessary to obtain the report after site inspection. Learned counsel would submit that without considering the prayer made in correct perspective, the Rent Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner.

Indisputably, the petition preferred by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur on 8.3.17 and aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 20.2.18 and thus, the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner that the premises was already vacated on 10.8.15 is not understandable. Be that as it may, the matter with regard to the premises being vacated by the petitioner-company and the possession thereof being handed over to the respondent is a matter of evidence and it is always open for the petitioner to prove the facts by producing evidence. The Commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence for any of the parties to the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal refusing to appoint the Commissioner does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.