Brij Lal @APPELLANT@Hash Rent Tribunal, Alwar

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.04.2008 passed by Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the application

submitted by the petitioner tenant for taking on record, the additional affidavits was rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent landlord filed an application under section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent

Tribunal, Alwar for eviction of petitioner tenant from the shop in dispute. During pendency of the eviction application the evidence of the parties were

recorded and the matter was fixed for final arguments by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar.

Thereafter, the petitioner tenant filed an application for taking on record the additional affidavits, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar vide

order dated 23.04.2008, hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant against the order dated 23.04.2008.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned tribunal has wrongly dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner tenant for taking on

record the additional affidavits. Counsel further submits that the learned tribunal on earlier occasion allowed the application submitted by the

respondent landlord for summoning of three witness vide order dated 14.09.2006. Counsel further submits that the learned tribunal should have

allowed the application as there was no delay on the part of the petitioner tenant in submitting the said application. Counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance upon a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Mustaq Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Liyakat Ali & Anr. where in para

No. 7,13 and 14 it has been held as under:-

“7. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it will be laying down that in the eviction petition, the landlord is required not

only to file eviction petition accompanied by his own affidavit with relevant documents but he is required to file all affidavits in support of his petition

and thereafter, the landlord shall have no right to file any affidavit or evidence. If it is so, then the plaintiff is required to submit evidence without

knowing the defence. Not only this, the plaintiff is required to file evidence only to the extent of his claim for seeking possession but shall not have any

right to destroy the case of the tenant nor shall have any right to rebut the evidence filed by the tenant. The law, if, is read only mechanically, then only

so can be held. The principles of natural justice require that the parties should know the case of the rival. The petitioner's case must be made known

to the non- petitioner by specific pleadings. The same principle applies for the non-petitioner that he should put his defence in a manner so that it may

be in the knowledge of the petitioner so that the petitioner may meet with the defence of the non- petitioner. In Section 15 itself, Subsection (4) is a

departure from the procedure provided under the C.P.C. where rejoinder or additional pleadings can be filed with the leave of the Court but here by

Sub-Section (4), it has been specifically provided that the petitioner shall have right to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the tenant. This is compliance

of the principles of natural justice by Sub-section (4) and obviously to avoid delay which may be caused as whenever any application is filed for

additional pleadings or submission, other party gets right to oppose it and the court is required to pass order and practice shows that in deciding such

application, the court may take time and proceeding in the suit delayed not only for months but even upto years. To shorten this delay, Sub-section (4)

in Section 15 has been made.

In the scheme as discussed above, once ithas been held that the landlord has right to file the affidavits after pleadings are complete upto the stage

of rejoinder, then the tenant can file his evidence only after knowing the evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the tenant thereafter gets right to file the

affidavits to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff and to strengthen his case further. The petitioner shall have a right to file additional affidavit without any

permission of the court because of his turn for filing evidence comes after the evidence of the plaintiff.

The procedure as described above doesn'tmean that it will delay the litigation and it is the duty of the Tribunal to regulate the proceedings and even

if there is some delay, then also there cannot be compromise with the principles of natural justice in the civil proceedings in any manner. The right of

the parties to submit the evidence is their inherent right in the litigation which cannot be compromised and without compromising that, the Tribunal may

proceed to decide the matters in accordance with law only but in the name of saving time by not passing the orders of nature like which has been

passed in this case, which is in clear violation of law as the order is non-speaking order.â€​

None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

The arguments raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the reasons; firstly the petitioner tenant has filed his own affidavit alongwith reply

before the learned rent tribunal but failed to file the affidavits of other persons; secondly the petitioner tenant has filed the application for taking on

record the additional affidavits at the stage when the matter was fixed for final arguments and the petitioner himself was responsible for filing

affidavits at such a belated stage.

The judgment referred by the petitioner’s counsel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the petitioner has

filed the application for taking on record the additional affidavits at the time of final arguments before the Rent Tribunal.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

The matter is pending before the Rent Tribunal since 2005, I deem it just and proper to direct the Rent Tribunal to decide the pending eviction

application within a period of three months.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Tribunal for necessary compliance.