Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Babu Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Sayara Bano W/o Late Shafi Mohammed – Respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant is directed against the order sheet dated 28.07.2022 drawn by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar in appeal no.14/2020 whereby, the matter has been posted on 07.09.2022 for arguments on an application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 and Section 151 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, ’the Act of 2001’) as also for arguments on appeal.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that an application filed by the respondents/landlord under Section 6 and Section 9 of the Act of 2001 came to be allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar vide its order dated 25.02.2020, which is subject matter of challenge in rent appeal no.14/2020 preferred by the petitioner which is pending consideration before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC read with Section 19(9) and Section 21 of the Act of 2001 which came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 05.04.2021. Thereafter,
The appellate court has the discretion to frame additional issues and record additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 25 and Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The burden of proof in establishing default in payment of rent lies with the landlord, and the landlord must discharge the initial burden of proof.
The Appellate Rent Tribunal can only take evidence in exceptional circumstances and cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal.
Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be permitted to usurp jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal.
The court upheld the dismissal of the tenant's appeal due to negligence and failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant.
The amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed only if the facts were not within the petitioner's knowledge prior to filing the reply.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed issues must be relevant and not duplicative of existing issues, and the court has the discretion to decide on the relevance of ad....
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
