Manohar Lal and Others vs Jagdish and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.�This writ petition is directed against order dated 8.2.11 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Barmer in case No. 9/07, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 21(3) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ( for short "the Act") read with Order XIV Rule 1 & 5 CPC, for framing the issues, has been rejected.

The respondent No. 1 herein, filed a petition against the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 to 6 herein, for their eviction from the rented premises on the grounds of sub letting, reasonable and bona fide necessity and the tenants acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for their requirement. The petition is being contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto.

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners preferred an application praying for framing of the issues on the ground that for convenience and a right decision of the case, it is absolutely necessary.

The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that in the petition filed seeking eviction mainly it is to be seen whether the landlord has reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises or not and looking at the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, no such dispute arises between the parties, requiring framing of the issues. The Rent Tribunal observed that the legal questions can be decided even without framing the issues. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Rent Tribunal has committed grave error in rejecting the application in cursory manner by a non speaking order. The learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has not even cared to go through the pleadings inasmuch as, while rejecting the application, it is observed that mainly issue involved is with regard to reasonable and bona fide necessity whereas, the eviction is sought also on the ground of sub letting and availability of alternative accommodation. Learned counsel submitted that in the reply filed, the petitioners have specifically denied the averments made in the petition and that apart, the objections have been raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it is barred by principle of res judicata. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the court below ignoring the law laid down by this court in the matter of Central Academy Educational Society Vs. The Pratap Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd., , is ex facie erroneous and deserves to be set aside and the application preferred by the petitioners deserves to be allowed as prayed for.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is not always necessary to frame the issues in proceedings before the Rent Tribunal and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that the respondents have no objection if the issues are directed to be framed.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

In Central Academy''s case (supra), this court while considering the matter with regard to necessity of framing the issues in proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, observed:

"15. Thus, it can be safely concluded that by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the CPC, 1908 but the same does not restrict the authority of the tribunal to adopt the procedure and apply the principle underlying the various provisions of CPC, 1908 if for finding out the truth and impart the justice between the parties, it is considered necessary to adopt such procedure.

Indisputably, the issues arises when a material proposition of facts or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. The object of any issue is to tie down the evidence, arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The correct decision of the civil lis largely depends on correct framing of the issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided.(vide Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia and Others, It is true that the eviction of a tenant in terms of the provisions of Section 9 can be sought for only on the grounds specified but then, the existence of the ground necessarily depends upon the basic facts being proved. Therefore, if there is difference between the parties on the material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of the matter, it is always advisable to frame the issues/points of determination.

It is true that the provisions of the Act does not mandate framing the issues or points of determination but then, if after due consideration of the matter the tribunal arrives at the conclusion that for a right decision of the matter, so as to impart justice between the parties, it is necessary to spell out the points of determination specifically and unambiguously then it is not precluded from framing of issues/points of determination and while taking such exercise, the tribunal can always apply the procedure and principles underlying Order XIV of the CPC. However, necessity of framing the issues has to be determined by the court taking into account the pleadings of the parties in each case. Thus, in considered opinion of this court, the tribunal could not have rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues by simply saying that it will not be appropriate to frame the issues in light of the Rules. Needless to say that any application preferred by the parties to the proceedings has to be dealt with by the tribunal in a just reasonable manner and the same should not be rejected in a cursory manner without touching the question raised, by a non speaking order.

The provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15 providing for summary inquiry to be made by the tribunal which is deemed necessary for decision of the petition also does not preclude the tribunal from framing the points of determinations and proceed with the inquiry accordingly. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that since the procedure to be adopted by the tribunal while deciding the petition is summary procedure therefore, the tribunal cannot frame the issues as in case of the trial of regular suit, is also devoid of any merit."

(emphasis added)

Adverting to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the petition seeking eviction has been filed by the respondent-landlord on the grounds of reasonable & bona fide necessity, sub letting and the tenants having acquired vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for their requirement, however, while passing the order impugned the Rent Tribunal has proceeded with the assumption that in the petition filed, the only issue required to be determined is with regard to the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the contentious issue arises in the matter for consideration of the Rent Tribunal including the issue with regard to the petition filed being barred by principles of res judicata and therefore, it will be appropriate that before proceeding with inquiry, the issues/points of determination arising in the matter are framed by the Rent Tribunal.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 8.2.11 is set aside. The Rent Tribunal is directed to frame the issues/points of determination arising in the matter on the basis of pleading of the parties. No order as to costs.