Sharvan Kumar Soni vs Rent Tribunal, Jaipur and Another

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 7.1.2009 dismissing the application of the petitioner by which the rejoinder and certain documents filed by the respondent-landlord therewith have been objected to and a prayer was made by the petitioner-tenant that the rejoinder and the facts pleaded therein which are outside the scope of the main eviction petition should be taken off/removed from the record. Shri Babu Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of this Court in Surendra Mehta Vs. Bapu Lal and Another, in support of his arguments.

Shri Keshav Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that nothing has been pleaded in the reply which is outside the main eviction petition and no part of affidavit in support of the petition contains any stipulation which is outside the scope of the main petition. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in Anop Chand vs. Nand Kishore & Ors., 2008 (1) RLW 796 (Raj.).

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that an application was filed by the petitioner objecting to filing of rejoinder, additional affidavit and additional documents filed by the landlord wherein the learned Rent Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court in Anop Chand, supra has held that the rejoinder, additional affidavit and documents can be filed. This Court in Surendra Mehta, supra has held that by virtue of Sec. 15(4) of the Rent Control Act, the applicant in an eviction application is entitled to file rejoinder which shall be confined to new pleas or facts introduced by non-applicant in his reply. It is only to rebut and refute the pleas set up in the reply, which contain new pleas and facts outside the scope of the main petition. It was held that respondent tried to introduce new facts and tried to set up a new case and to that extent the rejoinder was held liable to be excluded.

What was held in Anop Chand, supra was that an occasion to file rejoinder would arise essentially when some new averments or plea taken in reply by tenant calls for its replication from the applicant-landlord. It was held that interpretation of the petitioner would only lead to absurd result. Sec. 15(4) does not contain any prohibition in filing any additional affidavits and documents with rejoinder, but the Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and has wide powers to regulate its procedure and to call any witness as per Sec. 21. It was held that Tribunal cannot be said to be devoid of power to permit filing of additional affidavit or documents after filing petition or reply.

There does not appear to be any divergence of opinion in so far as the aforesaid two judgments relied on by either side are concerned. Section 21 of the Rent Control Act clearly provides that the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal would accept evidence of witness on affidavits. However, where it appears to it that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination, it may order attendance of such a witness for examination or cross examination. It is further provided therein that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 15 contains the procedure to be followed for eviction of tenant under Sec. 9 of the Act which inter alia provides that the eviction petition shall be accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, upon which the landlord or person claiming possession wants to rely. Sub-sec. (3) further provides that the non-applicant may file his reply, affidavits and documents within 45 days from the date of service of notice. Sub-section (4) of Sec. 15 has thereafter permitted the petitioner, i.e. in the present case, the landlord to file rejoinder, if any, after serving copy to the applicant within a period of 30 days from the date of service of reply.

The gist of the aforesaid two cases cited and relied on by the either parties is that there is no bar in the Act for filing affidavit and/or the documents with the rejoinder. However, intention of the legislature that is reflected from the Act is to simplify the procedure and speed up the disposal of eviction petitions and, therefore, the application of principles of natural justice and not CPC. Nothing which was not introduced or set up as a plea in reply to the main eviction petition, which cannot be said to be outside the pleas set up in the main petition, can be brought in by way of addition in rejoinder. The purpose of rejoinder is to clarify some such points which are new and outside the scope of the main petition and only to that extent the rejoinder or affidavit or even documents can be permitted at that stage. Demand of the petitioner-tenant however that such a plea of the rejoinder or the affidavit or its averments or the documents should be struck off from the record, cannot be appreciated because as specified in Sec. 21, provisions of CPC and for that matter, Indian Evidence Act are purposely been not made applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal/Appellate Rent Tribunal which is not supposed to act like a regular Court, but as a Tribunal and, therefore, what is provided by Sec. 21 is that though the provisions of CPC except those relating to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of document; reviewing its decision; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; dismissing petition for default or deciding it ex-parte; setting aside any order of dismissal of any petition for default or any order passed by it ex-parte, bringing legal representatives on record and for all other matters, the guiding principles would be the principles of natural justice.

The prayer of the petitioner that he would cross examine the witness of the landlord only if the plea in the rejoinder and/or affidavit and the documents should be struck off from the record, cannot be appreciated. However, the Tribunal while finally deciding the matter would certainly be entitled to exclude from consideration that part of the plea in the rejoinder and averment in the affidavit and the documents related thereto, which is/are outside the scope of any plea not newly set up in the reply. In other words only such pleas/averments/documents shall be liable to be considered with regard to which a new case has been set up by the petitioner-tenant in reply to the eviction petition requiring the landlord to meet those points in his rejoinder. The writ petition is disposed of with those clarifications directing the Rent Tribunal to decide the main case within a period of three months from the date next fixed before it.