Sabbuddin vs Manju Jain and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—1. Under challenge is the judgment dated 30-4-2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal Karauli (hereinafter ''the Tribunal'') dismissing the petitioner-tenant''s (hereinafter ''the tenant'') application under Section 21(1) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter ''2001 Act'') for allowing cross examination of the respondent-landlord (hereinafter ''the landlord'') on her affidavit in evidence in support of the eviction petition.

Heard learned counsel for the tenant and perused the impugned order dated 30-4-2009, thereby the Tribunal has held that the application seeking permission for cross examination of the landlord was not specific on the aspects in respect of which the landlord was to examined.

Counsel for the tenant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is cryptic and it has overlooked the fact that the cross examination of the deponent on an affidavit was essential for ascertaining the primary issue of landlord-tenant relationship struck on the pleadings of the parties or else the petition for revision of rent as laid by the landlord under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 would stand entitled to being allowed on the mere say of the purported landlord. It was submitted that the tenant had denied the relationship of tenant-landlord and reliance placed by the purported landlord on an alleged will dated 21-10-1985 executed by one Phool Chand was required to be put to the test of cross examination to ascertain the truth and the very maintainability of the petition. It was submitted that no prejudice would have been caused to the landlord in the event of her cross examination, as prayed for and the Tribunal on balance, in the interest of justice, ought to have allowed the tenant''s application for cross examination. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in case of Ramswaroop Vs. Charanjeet Singh [, RLW 2007 (4) Raj. 3427], wherein this court in the context of eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 inter alia on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity has held that a question of fact with regard to bona fide and reasonable necessity is required to be ascertained not on affidavit in evidence alone but cross examination of the deponent thereof is necessary for ascertaining the correct facts.

I find the contention of counsel for the tenant untenable. For one, the judgment of this court in the cases of Ramswaroop (supra) does not attract to the case at hand, inasmuch as the aforesaid case pertains to right to cross examination in an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. Such a situation does not obtain in the instant case, where the underlying petition is one under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 for revision of rent. Second, the case set up by the landlord is that she is the successor of erstwhile landlord Phool Chand in terms of the will dated 21-10-1985 and entitled to statutory revision of rent. Section 2(c) of the Act of 2001 defines a landlord inter alia to mean "any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant". The claim for rent or revised rent based on a will executed by the erstwhile landlord cannot be displaced by a cross examination of a legatee as it is well settled that a will cannot be put to challenge by one wholly unrelated more so without any specific pleadings as has been held in the case of Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage [, (2002) 2 SCC 85].

In the case of Mahmud Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan [, 2006 (1) RLW 380] a Division Bench of this court has held that proceedings under the Act of 2001 being summary in nature to allow cross examination of a deponent of an affidavit lies in the discretion of the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal, dependent upon its satisfaction that the cross examination of a deponent of affidavit is sought on specific aspects and on justifiable grounds. Proceedings under the Act of 2001 are summary in nature and routine permission for cross examination of deponents on their affidavits in evidence on mere askance of the opposite party would entail converting a summary trial into a long drawn one, analogous to a regular trial and defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Act of 2001.

It is in this context that the Tribunal has rightly held that no reasons, with reference to specific aspects on which cross examination of the landlord were set out by the applicant and hence the application for cross examination of the landlord on her affidavit in evidence was liable to be rejected.

I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has properly and judiciously exercised its discretion in the facts of the case. This court exercising its superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the Tribunal''s discretion without any evident perversity or misdirection in law. None of the aforesaid two situations are made out by counsel for the tenant. The petition therefore is evidently without any force and liable to be dismissed.

It is accordingly dismissed.