Vinod Nikub and Others vs Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.�This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.12.13 of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, passed in Rent Case No. 5/12, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the respondent-tenant to take an additional affidavit and documents on record, stands allowed.

The petitioners have filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the rented premises on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity, material alteration and default in payment of rent. The petition is being contested by the respondent-tenant by filing a reply thereto.

During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-tenant filed an application seeking leave to amend the reply so as to bring the subsequent event on record to show that the bona fide necessity of the premises as pleaded is not genuine. The application was contested by the petitioners by filing reply thereto. After due consideration, the application was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 23.7.13, however, while rejecting the application the Rent Tribunal observed that if the respondent-tenant has come into possession of the documents having relevancy to the dispute, it is open for him to make a prayer to take the same on record, if permissible under the law.

Accordingly, the respondent-tenant preferred an application with the prayer to take an additional affidavit and certain documents on record. The application has been allowed by the Rent Tribunal observing that the documents sought to be produced alongwith the additional affidavit are germane to the matter in dispute and since, the respondent-tenant is yet to be cross examined by the petitioners, in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be taken on record. However, the prayer made by the respondent-tenant to recall the witnesses of the petitioners stands rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without there being any pleadings, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in allowing the application preferred by the respondent-tenant for taking the additional affidavit on record, which contains new facts. Learned counsel submitted that the subsequent event sought to be brought on record by way of additional affidavit, in no manner establishes that the bona fide requirement of the petitioners as pleaded stands totally eclipsed and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in allowing the affidavit being taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that if the affidavit and documents are taken on record at this stage, the petitioners shall have no opportunity to counter the same and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of petition, alternative commercial accommodations had become available to the petitioners, however, instead of using the same for the purpose of intended business, the petitioners have let out the premises and therefore, apparently, the bona fide necessity as pleaded does not appear to be genuine. Learned counsel submitted that so as to establish that the bona fide necessity as pleaded does not exist, it is absolutely necessary to bring the subsequent event on record and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in permitting the additional affidavit and documents produced on behalf of the petitioners being taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the deponent-Narendra Kumar is yet to be cross examined and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners on account of additional affidavit and documents being taken on record.

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

It is to be noticed that bona fide necessity of the premises has been pleaded by the petitioners in terms that the petitioners intend to start business of milk and its products therein. The subsequent event sought to be brought on record by the petitioner by additional affidavit, on application seeking amendment being rejected, has direct bearing on the lis between the parties inasmuch as, according to the respondent during the pendency of the petition, two commercial premises had become available to the petitioners but instead of starting business therein, the same were let out.

Indisputably, in terms of provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15, the Tribunal is required to hold such summary inquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition. That apart, as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act, may regulate its own procedure. In this view of the matter, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal taking the additional affidavit and documents produced on behalf of the respondent on record. But then, the petitioners'' evidence already stands concluded and therefore, in the interest of justice, they deserve to be given an opportunity to file counter to the additional affidavit and documents taken on record.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the Tribunal to extend an opportunity to the petitioners to file counter to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent so also to produce the documentary evidence, if any, in rebuttal. The counter to the additional affidavit and the documents shall be filed by the petitioners within a period of two weeks, which shall be treated as evidence and shall be taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the matter. No order as to costs.