Brajesh Kumar vs Abhishek Jain and Another

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 11th July, 2013 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Bara (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''), in Eviction Petition No. 4 of 2012, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner for framing the additional issues as proposed by him in the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit of eviction against the petitioner-defendant, in which the Tribunal had framed the following two issues:-

The petitioner-defendant filed an application requesting the Tribunal to frame the additional issues as contained in the said application. The said proposed issues were as under:-

The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, rejected the said application by the impugned order, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

It has been sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioner that the respondent plaintiff was not the owner of the suit premises as his father himself was not held to be the owner in the order passed by the District Court in the earlier proceedings. According to him, the subsequent family settlement relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff was not genuine, and therefore the additional issues were required to be framed.

However, the learned counsel Mr. Amit Jindal for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that in the earlier proceedings, the Appellate Court had held the father of the respondent as the landlord of the suit premises, and after family settlement having taken place between the members of his family on 2/11/2011, the respondent-plaintiff had become the landlord of the suit premises, and therefore he had right to file the suit. He also submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal being just and legal. The same should not be interfered with. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal, after having considered all the proposed issues, had found that the same were not required to be framed in the present suit, and therefore dismissed the application of the petitioner. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, in the suit for eviction, the validity of family settlement could not be challenged by the petitioner-defendant, and the suit for eviction could not be converted into the suit for title. The Court has also rightly observed that the other issues proposed being not necessary for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present suit, the proposed issues were not required to be framed. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.