2009 Supreme(Raj) 2212
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Murari Lal - Appellant
Versus
Rent Tribunal & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10284 of 2008.
Decided On : 21-08-2009
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. M.K. Jain, Advocate.
The time limit prescribed in Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, is directory and not mandatory, and the right to file affidavits cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 15 - DELAY IN FILING AFFIDAVITS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION: The court interpreted Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, which deals with the time limit for filing affidavits in rent control proceedings. The court held that the time limit prescribed in Section 15 is directory and not mandatory, and that the right to file affidavits cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had filed a suit for eviction under the Rent Control Act, sought permission to file affidavits of three persons after the expiry of the time limit prescribed in Section 15 of the Act. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Rent Tribunal. The court held that the right to plead and prove one's case is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that this right cannot be diluted except in rare circumstances. The court further held that the provisions of Section 15 of the Act are directory in character and not mandatory in nature, and that the learned Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner to file his three affidavits in order to substantiate his case.
Issues: 1. Whether the time limit prescribed in Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, is mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the right to file affidavits can be denied on hyper-technical grounds?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the time limit prescribed in Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, is directory and not mandatory. The court reasoned that the right to plead and prove one's case is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that this right cannot be diluted except in rare circumstances. 2. The court held that the right to file affidavits cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds. The court reasoned that the foremost duty of a Court or tribunal is to do justice between the parties, and that justice is not only a sacred concept, but is a constitutional mandate.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Rent Tribunal. The court directed the Rent Tribunal to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file the necessary affidavits.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.08.2008 whereby the Rent Tribunal, Alwar has dismissed the petitioner's application for filing affidavits of three persons.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.1983, the petitioner had bought a shop, the shop-in-dispute in this case, through a registered sale-deed from one Mr. Labh Chand. The said shop was rented out to one Mr. Phool Chand. Along with Mr. Phool Chand, Mr. Narendra Kumar, respondent No.2, also carried out the business in the said shop. Mr. Phool Chand expired on 09.02.2001; after his death, Mr. Narendra continuing to be the tenant in the shop. Since the petitioner himself was engaged in the business of manufacturing of copies, in the name and style of M/s. Goyal Copy Manufacturers, he required the said shop for running his business. Therefore, on 08.02.2004, the petitioner filed a suit for eviction under Section 9 and 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 on the ground of personal necessity. Mr. Narendra kumar filed a written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. On 15.07.2006, the learned Tribunal framed the issues. On 01.09.2006, the petitioner filed an application for seeking permission to submit affidavits of three persons whose affidavits could not be submitted inadvertently at the time of filing of the plaint. Mr. Kumar vehemently opposed the said application. Vide order dated 26.08.2008, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case through cogent evidence. This burden of proof has been placed not only by a statute such as the Evidence Act, but is also the right of a plaintiff under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to plead and to prove his case. For, the right to a fair trial is an essential part of the concept of "life and personal liberty" enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, Section 15 of the Act is pari materia with Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. In a catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the time limit given for filing the reply or filing the affidavit is not mandatory, but is merely directory in nature. Therefore, right to file affidavit cannot be denied on the hyper-technicality of delay. Lastly, justice should not only be done, but it should appear to be done. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal & Anr., 2009(2) RLW 1547 (Raj.) (DB) , and Ganesh Kumar v. Rent Tribunal, Alwar & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2408/06 decided by this Court on 04.07.2006 .
4. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent, has placed the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act and has argued that since the time frame has been prescribed by the Legislature, the time frame has to be adhered to. Therefore, the petitioner was not justified in claiming the right to submit the affidavits after an inordinate delay of two years. Moreover, such affidavits could not be filed after the issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress his case, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Pukh Raj v. Judge, Rent Tribunal & Ors., 2008 (3) WLC (Raj.) 461 ,
5. Heard, the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and considered the case law cited at the Bar.
6. The right to plead and to prove the case emanates not only from the common law, but is also guaranteed by the Constitution of India. In a democracy, every person enjoys the said right contained in the concept of "life and personal liberty". Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to a fair trial. The concept of a fair trial is not just limited to a criminal trial, but also extends to a civil suit. According to the Evidence Act, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
