Point of Law: Appellate Rent Tribunal has allowed documents to be taken on record, while remanding matter back to learned Rent Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annex.8) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant, are that the respondent filed an application under Section 9(A), (I) and Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2001’) before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan seeking eviction of the petitioner/non-applicant from the residential premises in question, as let out to the petitioner/non-applicant. Such eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent of the residential premises in question by the petitioner/non-applicant. It was further stated in the application that the house in question was let out on 01.04.1999 on monthly rent of Rs. 65/- the rate of monthly rent remained the same till 2003, but after applicability of the Act of 2001, the petitioner/non-applicant was liable to pay the enhanced rent of the premises in question, but he did not make the payments, ever since the year 1999. Thereafter, the respondent-applicant sent a legal notice to the petitioner/non-applicant calling upon him to make payments of the arrears of rent, but the same was not done.

2.1. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2018, dismissed the eviction application filed by the respondent-applicant, as not maintainable; against which the respondent-applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 and while quashing and setting aside the said order dated 27.07.2018, the matter was remanded back to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the main application afresh within period of two months.

2.1.1 Vide the said impugned order, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal also allowed the application preferred by the respondent-applicant under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record.

2.2. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submitted that the application moved by the respondent-applicant under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19(9) of the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record was allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, because no justifiable explanation was forthcoming in the said application, which may warrant taking of the documents, as mentioned in the application, on record. He further submitted that the impugned order is also erroneous on count of the fact that such documents were created subsequently, and thus, taking the same on record, at the stage of appeal, clearly runs contrary to law.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant also submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed two documents to be exhibited at the stage of appeal without even providing any adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/non-applicant, and without considering the position of law governing the field. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Bench in the cases of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Others (2010) 8 SCC 423 and N. Kamalam (Dead) and Others vs. Ayyasamy and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 503.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant further submitted that the respondent-appli