Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Late Sh. Bhopal Singh vs Renu Somani (2023/Rjjd/016686) on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/016686]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6728/2023
1. Lrs Of Late Sh. Bhopal Singh, Through -
1/1. Chetan Buliya S/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh Buliya, Sessions
Court Road, Somani Bhavan, Bhopalganj, District
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Renu Somani W/o Brijmohan Somani, Mangrop Hall, Lal Bhadur
Shastri Market Factory Area, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch
Mr. Lalit Pareek
Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/05/2023
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
claiming the following reliefs :-
"i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned order dated 13.04.2023 (Annex.7) passed
by the learned Rent Tribunal Bhilwara, in Rent Case
No.02/2017 titled as (Smt. Renu Somani Vs. Shri
Bhopal Singh) may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara may kindly be directed
to allow the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Section 151
CPC, in Rent Case No.02/2017 (Smt. Renu Somani Vs.
Shri Bhopal Singh) and the detailed affidavit filed by
the petitioner along with the application may kindly be
taken on record."
(Downloaded on 24/05/2023 at 09:26:22 PM)
[2023/RJJD/016686] (2 of 3) [CW-6728/2023]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment rendered by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of
Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. Smt. Vidhya Devi & Anr. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.12866/2009), decided on 06.08.2015,
relevant portion reads as under :-
"Learned counsel for tenant-petitioner argued that
learned Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact
that landlord-respondent Smt. Vidhyadevi has expired
and her legal heirs were brought on record. Earlier
thereto, they were not party to original application,
which was filed on 22.12.2004. In original application,
reasonable and bona- fide necessity was claimed in the
name of Rajesh Kumar. Petitioner submitted reply
thereto and also filed a short affidavit, and intended to
file detailed affidavit later on, but learned Rent Tribunal
did not allow and refuse the same to be taken on
record. It is contended that Section 21(3) (ka) of the
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, empowers the Rent
Tribunal to accept affidavit in evidence and give
opportunity to respondent to cross-examine. The
procedure is not to deprive any person from justice but
it is to provide opportunity to respective parties for
ends of justice.
Learned counsel for respondent-landlord opposed
the writ petition and submitted that learned Rent
Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the
tenant-petitioner refusing the affidavit to be taken on
record.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that if
the affidavit is not taken on record, the matter would be
decided by default against the tenant. In the interest of
justice, therefore, one opportunity needs to be given to
(Downloaded on 24/05/2023 at 09:26:22 PM)
[2023/RJJD/016686] (3 of 3) [CW-6728/2023]
the tenant although of course subject to payment of
costs of Rs.5000/- to the landlord.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed. The affidavit
shall be produced before the Rent Tribunal on the next
date or any other date within one month as may be
fixed by it for cross-examination, which may be taken
on record with costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by tenant-
petitioner to landlord-respondent. "
3. It is not disputed that the original tenant i.e. wife has
expired and the petitioner is the sole surviving member of the
family.
4. In light of the aforequoted order and in the interest of
justice, the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 is quashed and set
aside and the petitioner is given one last chance to file his affidavit
on or before the next date before the court below. The learned
trial court shall decide the petition expeditiously, preferably within
a period of 240 days from today.
5. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
117-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
