Girdhari Lal @APPELLANT@Hash Ashok Kumar

This petition is directed against order dated 2.8.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No.120/17, whereby the application

preferred by the petitioners to recall the witnesses of the applicant, the respondent no.1 herein, for cross examination, stands rejected.

The relevant facts are that the respondent no.1-Ashok Kumar filed an application under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short

“the Act of 2001â€) against the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 7 herein, seeking their eviction from a commercial premises on the ground of

subletting, reasonable and bonafide necessity, the tenant acquiring the vacant possession of the suitable premises and non user of the premises without

reasonable cause. The application is being contested by inter alia the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto.

The statements of AW1-Ashok Kumar, the applicant-landlord were recorded by the Rent Tribunal on 9.2.17, however, the time was sought on

behalf of the petitioners herein for cross examination on the ground that counsel appearing on their behalf is out of station. Accordingly, the matter

was adjourned on payment of costs Rs.250/-. On the next date of hearing i.e. 22.3.17, again time was sought on behalf of the petitioners for cross

examination. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 27.4.17. The petitioners having failed to avail the opportunity of cross examination, on 27.4.17

while recording the cross examination on behalf of the respondents no. 7 & 8 as ‘Nil’, the matter was posted for examination of the

applicants’ remaining witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 23.1.18, an application was preferred on behalf of

the petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling the respondent no.1-Ashok Kumar for cross examination. The

application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that no reasonable cause is shown by the petitioners herein for not

availing the opportunity extended for cross examination. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the counsel appearing on their behalf did not cross examine the witness and when they

come to know about the lapses on the part of the counsel, they changed their counsel and preferred an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 for

recalling the witness. It is submitted that if the opportunity of cross examination is not extended, the petitioners’ defence shall be prejudiced and

therefore, in the interest of justice, they deserve to be extended an opportunity to cross examine the applicant.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

It is noticed that the rent application in question was filed by the applicant on 28.11.14. The non applicants were extended an opportunity to cross

examine the applicant vide order dated 14.5.15. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for evidence of the applicant. The applicant was cross

examined on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 on 9.2.17, however, the time was sought on behalf of the petitioners for cross examination, which

was granted on payment of costs Rs.250/-. On 22.3.17, the matter was again was adjourned on the request made by the petitioners herein and

thereafter, on 27.4.17, the petitioners having failed to avail the opportunity of cross examination, the evidence of applicant Ashok Kumar was

concluded while recording the cross examination on behalf of the respondents no. 7 & 8 as ‘Nil’. The application was preferred on behalf of the

petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151Â CPC after a lapse of about eight months on 23.1.18 which remained pending for about

seven months.

It is noticed that the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal is summary proceedings which as per the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 15 is

required to be disposed of within a period of 240 days from the service of notice on the tenant. As noticed above, the application is pending before the

Rent Tribunal for last about four years. It is not disputed that despite opportunities being granted, the petitioners did not cross examine the witness

present before the court. In the considered opinion of this court, the delaying tactics adopted in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal deserves to

be curbed and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, noticed hereinabove, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal declining to recall

the witness for cross examination at the instance of the petitioners herein does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.