Honey Son of Hukam Singh vs Shiv Prasad Arya

Under challenge is the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan dismissing the petitionernon applicant-tenant''s

(hereafter ''the tenant'') application for taking on record the affidavits of his witnesses in defence. The Rent Tribunal has dismissed the said

application for reasons of it being belatedly filed subsequent to recording of the evidence of the respondent-applicant-landlord (hereafter ''the

landlord''). The Rent Tribunal has founded its impugned order on Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter ''the Act of

2001'') which requires affidavits in evidence to be filed alongwith the eviction petition by the landlord and the reply thereto by the tenant. The Rent

Tribunal has noted that not only the tenant did not comply with the procedural requirement, but did not give out any plausible explanation in his

application for taking such affidavits in evidence belatedly. And the application then could not be allowed as a matter of course. In fact the Rent

Tribunal found that the reason given by the tenant for not filing the affidavit of evidence in defence was his inability to contact his advocate for the

purpose and was lame duck to gloss over the gross contravention of procedure prescribed for the purpose under Section 15 of the Act of 2001.

Counsel for the tenant impugning the Tribunal''s order submitted that in the interest of justice one opportunity of filing the affidavits in defence be

permitted. No other argument was made. I am of the considered view that ''interest of justice'' argument is overdone. Procedure prescribed under

the Act of 2001 for expedited disposal of landlord-tenant disputes though not iron clad cannot be jettisoned on an argument of ""interest of justice

vaguely and generally propagated. For the sanctity of proceedings before the Rent Tribunals and the advancement of the purpose of legislature for

expedited disposal of landlord-tenant disputes, if there is a deviation from the procedure such as non filing of the affidavits in defence alongwith

reply thereto, within the time prescribed, justifiable reasons for the exercise of the Tribunal''s discretion in extending time for the purpose to be

given out and the deviation has to be rectified at the earliest. In the instant case, it has not been done so by the tenant. The application for bringing

on record the affidavits of witnesses of the tenant was belatedly filed subsequent to recording of the evidence of the landlord and after a delay of

over a year and half - and without good reason at all. This Court just on count of being a superior court cannot interfere with the discretionary

orders of the Rent Tribunal. Such an approach would denude the rent tribunals of all discretion and be destructive of their capacity to enforce the

law as also to administer justice.

In this view of the matter, I find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.