Santosh Devi Sharma vs Salim Ahamad and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against two orders passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 22.2.2014. By those orders, the Rent Tribunal has dismissed the applications of the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act to place on record certain documents.

Facts of the case are that in the month of August, 2008, the respondent-applicant filed an application No. 16/2008 titled Salim Ahmad vs. Smt. Santosh Devi under the Rent Control Act for revision of rent and eviction. Petitioner filed reply to the application and the respondent also filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner. On 15.12.2012, petitioner moved an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act for taking the registered sale deed dated 5.4.2003, photo copy of power of attorney dated 26.8.2003 and also one notice dated 18.5.2005 on record and for summoning the original power of attorney dated 16.8.2003. The non-petitioner filed reply to the application on 20.3.2013. On 9.11.2013, petitioner filed another application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act for taking the certified copy of the register of the notary public where the execution of the said power of attorney is registered. On 26.11.2013, applicant non-petitioner filed the reply to the application and prayed to dismiss the application. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed both the applications vide its two separate orders dated 22.2.2014. Hence this writ petition.

Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in rejecting the application of the petitioner to take on record the aforementioned documents on the ground that they are not relevant. It is contended that the question of relevancy cannot be decided at interlocutory stage. The learned trial court failed to grasp the point of the petitioner that by producing those documents, the petitioner wants to prove necessity of the landlord as sham and that this plea was falsely taken by the landlord. The respondent-Salim Ahmad was in connivance with Jamila Begum. Petitioner wants to bring on record copy of the power of attorney because the respondent landlord denied the same. The time limit prescribed under Section 15(2) to place a document could not be applicable if the matter is considered in the light of provisions contained in Section 21 of the Rent Control Act. The landlord set up a false case by denying the existence of power of attorney and now by production of photocopy thereof, his bona fides stand exposed and that its production was essential for effective decision of the matter.

Shri Hanish Khan, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner in the reply to the eviction petition has not disputed the status of the respondent as landlord, rather he has admitted the status of the respondent as landlord and his own status as tenant and has asserted in para 3 of the reply that there was no disputed with regard to ownership or title of the disputed property and that such a dispute cannot be decided under the Rent Control Act. In reply to the eviction petition, petitioner has admitted that respondent was partner with Jamila Begum in their properties and that he was managing all her properties. The petitioner by application has sought to place on record the photo copy of the power of attorney said to have been executed by Jamila Begum in favor of respondent-Salim Ahamad and that he also wanted to produce sale deed dated 5.4.2003, notice dated 18.5.2005 and also prayed to summon the original Power of Attorney dated 16.8.2003. By another application he wanted to take certified copy of the register of the notary public. Both of which applications have been dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner-tenant in her reply to para 3 of the eviction application has categorically sated that she does not dispute the status of the respondent as landlord and her own status as tenant. She also stated that there was no dispute with regard to ownership or title of the premises in question, nor can such dispute be decided under Rent Control Act. In para 4, she has stated that if the landlord had set up a case for oral Hiba as per the sunni personal law applicable to the respondent, he has to prove the same. In that very para, she has stated that landlord has by cunning methods set up a case of bona fide and reasonable necessity and that the respondent-landlord was in collusion with Jamila Begum and both are one on this point and that in fact the respondent-Salim Ahamad has partnership in the property of Shalimar Hotel. Jamila Begum is staying out of the State in a foreign country and rarely visits Jhunjhunu. The respondent was acting as Manager of all her properties and he was also her partner. In the face of all these pleas set up by the petitioner-tenant, it rather admits the status of the respondent as landlord and also goes to the extent of saying that respondent was partner with Jamila Begum in the premises of Shalimar hotel and that he was acting as Manager for all her properties. Production of sale deed executed in favor of Jamila Begum by previous owner Kamal Singh and Sunil Kumar as also power of attorney said to have been executed by Jamila Begum in favor of respondent would be inconsequential. For the same reason, therefore, summoning of original of the power of attorney would have no bearing on the controversy in the present matter. When the status of the respondent as landlord and also Manager of Jamila Begum for her properties is asserted by petitioner-tenant in her reply to the eviction petition, it would make no difference whether the respondent had earlier denied existence of power of attorney and that now such power of attorney has surfaced. The Rent Tribunal, as rightly conceded by the petitioner-tenant herself, cannot decide on the title of the parties. The findings are recorded by the Rent Tribunal that under Section 15(2) the tenant has to produce all the required documents along with her reply. The Rent Tribunal has also observed that a party cannot claim to bring on record the documents pertaining to subsequent developments only by filing application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act and that the Rent Tribunal will have to see the relevancy of the documents, need not be interfered with. Although strictly speaking in law the question of relevancy before the Rent Tribunal cannot be applied in the sense in which such question can be raised and considered by civil court in regular civil suit. The remedy of eviction petition under Section 9 before the Rent Tribunal is a summary and speedy remedy where all the questions with regard to admissibility etc. have been done away with and all provisions of CPC have not been made applicable. The overriding and paramount consideration with the Rent Tribunal has to be the principles of natural justice. The provisions of CPC to only extent specified in Section 21 have been made applicable. At the same time, however, the Tribunal was not unjustified in holding that these documents which the petitioner wanted to produce on record would have no relevance in view of the stand taken by the tenant herself. The present eviction petition has been filed way back in 2008 and, therefore, all such applications which are aimed at delaying the proceedings ought not to be entertained.

There is no error in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.