Mohammad Ali vs Arbab Khan Sheikh

This petition is directed against order dated 26.9.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sujangarh, in Rent Case No.21/16, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for framing of the issues has been rejected.

The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that in proceedings under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act'), the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Relying upon a decision of this Court in 'Central Academy Edu. Soc. Vs. Pratap Commercial Co.' 2010(2) RLW 1327, it is observed that sub section (3) of Section 21 of the Act, does not restrict the authority of Rent Tribunal to adopt the procedure and apply the principles underline the various provisions of CPC, if for finding out the truth and impart justice between the parties, it is considered necessary to adopt such procedure. However, the Rent Tribunal found that the rent petition has been filed by the landlord for recovery of arrear of rent and for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable & bonafide necessity and thus, all the three points arising in the matter being self-explanatory, it is not necessary to frame the issues as prayed for.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that on the facts and the circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has specifically averred that the respondent is neither the owner of the property nor the landlord of the shop in question, failure to frame points of determination may seriously prejudiced his case inasmuch as the points arising for consideration may escape adjudication. Learned counsel submitted that while deciding the application, the Rent Tribunal even not referring to the aforesaid aspect involved in the matter, reflects that for adjudication of the lis between the parties, the framing of the issues is absolutely necessary. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the controversy involved in the rent petition being confined to three points noticed by the Rent Tribunal, in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, which is summary proceedings, the issues are not required to be framed and therefore, the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal after due application of the mind does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

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

Indisputably, in the instant case, the respondent has filed the petition for recovery of arrear of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable & bonafide necessity. But then, a perusal of the reply to the petition filed by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal placed on record as Annexure-2 reveals that the petitioner has specifically averred that the respondent herein is neither the owner of the property nor the landlord and therefore, the question of the petitioner being his tenant does not arise. Suffice it to say that the landlord and tenant relationship has also been denied by the petitioner. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that while dismissing the application preferred this aspect of the matter has not even been noticed by the Rent Tribunal.

As observed by this Court in the Central Academy's case (supra), the provisions of the Act do not mandate framing of issues or points of determination but then, if after due consideration of the matter, the Tribunal arrives at the finding 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 the issues/points of determination and while taking such exercise, the Tribunal can always apply the procedure and principles underline Order XIV of CPC. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, this court is of the opinion that for just and convenient disposal of the petition, it would be appropriate that issues/points of determination are framed by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal is set aside. The application preferred by the respondent is allowed. The Rent Tribunal, Sujangarh is directed to frame the points of determination, after due consideration of pleadings of the parties. No order as to costs.