Neelam Nagpal vs Tolaram
2022 Latest Caselaw 6747 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9869/2021

Neelam Nagpal W/o Late Shri Rakesh Nagpal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner (At Present Residing At 2/3-A, Rail Vihar, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Tejbhan Balana S/o Late Shri Hukum Chand Balan, Aged About 58, R/o 6-A-12, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus Tolaram S/o Shri Kishanram Bhadu, R/o Gali No.1, Laxmi Vihar, Near B.S.F., Sagar Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

                                                                        ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. M.S. Purohit



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                          Order

07/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner

being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by

the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as

'the appellate rent tribunal') in Appeal No.207/2015 (CIS

No.230/2015), whereby it has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of

the respondent while setting aside the judgment and decree dated

24.04.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the rent tribunal') in Civil Original Case

No.42/2013, whereby the rent tribunal has dismissed the

application filed by the respondent under Section 18 of the

(2 of 5) [CW-9869/2021]

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as

'the Act of 2001').

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an

application against the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of

2001 before the rent tribunal with a prayer to restrain the

petitioner from dispossessing him from the property in question

without following due process of law. Pursuant to the summons

issued by the rent tribunal, the petitioner appeared before it and

filed reply to the above application of the respondent. Thereafter,

the respondent and his other witnesses filed affidavits in evidence

and the matter was fixed for their cross-examination.

From the perusal of the order-sheets of the rent tribunal, it

appears that when the respondent and his other witnesses failed

to appear before the rent tribunal for the purpose of cross-

examination, then vide order dated 05.01.2015 the rent tribunal

ultimately closed their opportunity of adducing the evidence and

proceeded further in the matter. At this stage, the petitioner

stated before the rent tribunal that she is also not going to adduce

any evidence in support of her reply to the application of the

respondent. Ultimately, the rent tribunal vide judgment dated

24.04.2015 dismissed the application filed by the respondent.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by

the rent tribunal, the respondent preferred an appeal before the

appellate rent tribunal while stating that he was in police as well

as in judicial custody from 02.06.2014 to 13.02.2015, therefore,

failed to adduce evidence before the rent tribunal and to make

himself and his witnesses present for the purpose of cross-

examination.

(3 of 5) [CW-9869/2021]

Taking into consideration the above fact, the appellate rent

tribunal vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 has allowed the appeal

of the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree dated

24.04.2015 passed by the rent tribunal while remanding the

matter to it with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the

respondent to adduce his evidence in support of his application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that vide

impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021, the appellate rent tribunal

has grossly erred in allowing the appeal preferred on behalf of the

respondent and also erred in setting aside the judgment dated

24.04.2015 passed by the rent tribunal. It is argued that as per

the respondent's own contention, he was released from jail on

13.02.2015 but after that he has not moved any application

before the rent tribunal for granting him any opportunity to

adduce his evidence though after 13.02.2015, the matter was

fixed on 04.03.2015 and 22.04.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the

above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the

respondent had deliberately not adduced his evidence before the

rent tribunal and as such the rent tribunal has not committed any

illegality in passing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2015

but the appellate rent tribunal has committed illegality in

interfering in the matter vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 and,

therefore, the judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the

appellate rent tribunal is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued

that the appellate rent tribunal has not committed any illegality in

passing the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021.

(4 of 5) [CW-9869/2021]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

It is true that the respondent failed to adduce his evidence

before the rent tribunal though he was granted opportunities for

the same on different dates but it is an admitted position that he

remained in police as well as in judicial custody from 02.06.2014

to 13.02.2015 and the rent tribunal closed the opportunity of

adducing his evidence on 05.01.2015 itself.

When the respondent was in police as well as in judicial

custody from 02.06.2014 to 13.02.2015, he was not in a position

to adduce his evidence before the rent tribunal.

This Court feels that every person has right to prove his/her

case before any court and for that purpose sufficient opportunity

for adducing evidence is required to be given.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances

of the case, I don't find any illegality in the impugned judgment

dated 24.03.2021 passed by the appellate rent tribunal.

Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is

hereby dismissed.

However, taking into consideration the fact that the

application under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has been filed by

the respondent in the year 2013, I deem it appropriate to direct

the rent tribunal to decide the said application filed by the

respondent expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months

from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that the rent tribunal shall not grant more

than one opportunity to the respondent to adduce his evidence.

(5 of 5) [CW-9869/2021]

The petitioner as well as the respondent are directed not to

seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter.

Ordered accordingly.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)