Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANGEET LODHA, J.
SURENDRA KUMAR & ANR. – Appellant
VS.
ABDUL RAHEEM & ORS. – Respondent
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1828/12
Decided on: 26th September, 2014
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII - Rule 9 - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9(i) & (m) , 20, 21 and 15 (1) (3) (4) - Tenant - Dismantling building - Seeking eviction - Petitioners have taken stand in their reply that walls and the roof of disputed property have not been damaged and premises is safe for human habitation - In para no. 9 of reply petitioners denied allegation that on account of fire premises has been completely damaged - It is stated that only certain stone slabs cracked which fell on roof of rented premises and damaged kitchen and resulted in cracks in roof made of stone slabs - Precisely, according to petitioners premises has not been substantially damaged so as to warrant reconstruction after dismantling existing building - Petitioners preferred an application under S read with CPC objecting the additional pleadings in para no. 9 of rejoinder so also document (Ex.17) and affidavit of being taken on record - It was prayed that para no.9 of the rejoinder may be ordered to be deleted and the Ex.17 alongwith photographs and affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta may be struck off from record and be kept in "D" part of the file - Aggrieved thereby a writ petition being No preferred by petitioners was dismissed by this court vide order dated observing that averments made in para no.9 of rejoinder only explain alleged substantial damage to the property and in no manner it can be said that by incorporating facts as contained in para no.9 of rejoinder respondents have attempted to introduce altogether a new case in garb of rejoinder to the prejudice of rights of the petitioners - Court observed that on rejoinder being taken on record applicant can always be permitted to lead oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the averments made therein – Held, It is to be noticed that in support of averments made respondents have relied upon opinion of experts namely Punamia and and have also filed additional affidavits and documents in support thereof therefore in conformity with principles of natural justice so as to extend fair opportunity to petitioners to defend case set out against them they deserve to be extended an opportunity to rebut additional evidence sought to be produced by respondents - Order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal refusing leave sought for by petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction - But then, the order passed by Rent Tribunal not permitting the petitioners to file additional affidavits and documents in rebuttal to additional evidence brought on record by respondents in support of averments made in rejoinder is found to be contrary to law and erroneous - Writ petition is partly allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over eviction of tenants under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, with issues related to the damage and safety of the premises following a fire (!) .
The tenants (petitioners) denied that the premises were substantially damaged, asserting that only certain stone slabs cracked, and the building remained safe and habitable (!) .
The respondents filed a rejoinder that included expert opinions and additional evidence to support claims of damage to the property, which the tenants sought to rebut by filing a counter and additional affidavits and documents (!) (!) .
The Rent Tribunal initially rejected the tenants' application to file a counter to the rejoinder and to produce rebuttal evidence, citing procedural limitations and the absence of new facts in the rejoinder (!) .
The tenants challenged this order through a writ petition, arguing that principles of natural justice required them to be allowed to rebut the additional evidence, especially since the respondents relied on expert opinions and new reports (!) .
The court recognized that while the rejoinder did not contain entirely new facts, the respondents had relied on expert opinions and additional evidence that warranted a fair opportunity for the tenants to rebut, in accordance with principles of natural justice and the provisions of the relevant statutes (!) (!) .
The court held that the order refusing the tenants' request to file a counter was lawful, but the refusal to allow them to produce rebuttal evidence in response to the additional affidavits and documents was contrary to law and erroneous (!) .
As a result, the court partly allowed the writ petition, maintaining the order rejecting the tenants' application to file a counter but setting aside and modifying the order to permit the tenants to file additional affidavits and documents in rebuttal to the new evidence introduced by the respondents (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of providing a fair opportunity for parties to respond to all evidence, especially when expert opinions and additional reports are relied upon, in proceedings guided by principles of natural justice (!) .
This summary captures the essence of the legal reasoning and the outcome regarding the procedural rights of the parties to present and rebut evidence in the context of eviction proceedings under the relevant rent control legislation.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 17.12.11 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No.21/06, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001'), seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents and to take additional affidavits and documents on record, stands rejected.
2. The respondents-landlord have filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenant from the rented premises on the grounds of reasonable & bona fide requirement and requirement of the premises to carry out the building work in terms of provisions of Section 9(i) & (m) of the Act of 2001 respectively.
3. The application is being contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto. The petitioners have taken the stand in their reply that the walls and the roof of the disputed property have not been damaged and the premises is safe for human habitation. In para no. 9 of the reply, the petitioners denied the allegation that on account of the fire, the premises has been completely damaged. It is stated that only certain stone slabs cracked, which fell on the roof of the rented premises and damaged the kitchen and resulted in cracks in the roof made of stone slabs. Precisely, according to the petitioners, the premises has not been substantially damaged so as to warrant reconstruction after dismantling the existing building.
4. The respondents filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 21 & 15 of the Act of 2001 read with Order VIII Rule 9, CPC objecting the additional pleadings in para no. 9 of the rejoinder so also the document (Ex.17) and affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta being taken on record. It was prayed that para no.9 of the rejoinder may be ordered to be deleted and the Ex.17 alongwith photographs and the affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta may be struck off from the record and be kept in the "D" part of the file.
5. After consideration of the rival submissions, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that by way of rejoinder the respondents have only controverted the averments made in the reply and it cannot be said that the new facts are pleaded by them. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioners/tenants was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 25.10.07. Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition being No.370/08 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by this court vide order dated 9.9.10 observing that the averments made in para no.9 of the rejoinder only explain the alleged substantial damage to the property and in no manner it can be said that by incorporating the facts as contained in para no.9 of the rejoinder, the respondents have attempted to introduce altogether a new case in the garb of rejoinder to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioners. The court observed that on rejoinder being taken on record, the applicant can always be permitted to lead oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the averments made therein. However, the court specifically observed that if according to the petitioners therein any new pleas and facts are incorporated in the rejoinder which need to be controverted then they can always seek leave of the Rent Tribunal to file a counter thereto.
6. After disposal of the writ petition by this court as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred an application seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder as also to produce evidence in rebuttal. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that to show that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation, the respondents had already filed the reports of Shri Mahesh Agarwal and Shri Shivdutt Bissa alongwith their original application. However, while filing the rejoinder, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
