Honble MAHESHWARI, J.–The writ petitioner is defending a petition filed by his landlords before the Rent Tribunal, Nagaur (Case No.12/2006) for recovery of arrears of rent, for revision of rent, and for eviction on the grounds, inter alia, of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, and the tenant acquiring suitable accommodation. After filing of the reply by the present petitioner, the respondents- landlords filed their rejoinder and along with the rejoinder put in certain documents Exhibit 16 to 18 and so also affidavits of the applicant Kamal Kishore and one witness Naresh. The petitioner raised objection that such additional affidavits and documents were filed with the rejoinder without there being any permission or direction from the Tribunal in that regard; and that Section 15(4) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (the Act) provides only for filing of rejoinder but there is no provision that permits filing of affidavits and documents with rejoinder.

(2). The objection so raised by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20.07.2007(Annex.7) with the following observations:-

^^cskd fdjk;k dkuwu esa tckcqy tckc ds lkFk kiFk i= nLrkost isk djus dk funsZk i{kdkj dks ugha fn;k gS bldk vFkZ ;g ugha yxk;k tk ldrk fd izR;kFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc ,oa mBk;s x;s u;s rF;ksa dk izLrqr tckcqy tckc esa vafdr rF;ksa ds vfHkopu fy, lk{; dh vko;drk u gksA blds foijhr vf/kdj.k ;g ekurh gS fd fdlh i{kdkj }kjk tckcqy tckc esa vafdr fd;s x;s rF;ksa dks Hkh kiFk i= ;k fQj nLrkost lk{; lefFkZr ,oa izekf.kr djs mlds vHkko esa fdlh izdkj dk izLrqr tckcqy tckc dk dksbZ lk{kh; eqY; ugha jg tkrk gSA vc ;fn vf/kfu;e esa tckcqy tckc ds lkFk isk djus dk funsZk dkuwu vafdr ugha fd;k gS bldh lh/kh lknh O;k[;k ;gh gks ldrh gS fd vthZ nkok o tokc ds lkFk kiFk i= ;k dksbZ nLrkost ;k de ls de kiFk i= isk djuk vfuok;Z gSA ysfdu tckcqy tckc ckcr dksbZ i{kdkj ek= udkjkRed rF; vafdr djs ;k vU;Fkk :i ls Hkh dksbZ lk{; isk djuk u pkgs rks mlds fy, kiFk i=/ nLrkost isk djuk dkuwu ck/;dkjh ugha gksrkA ysfdu ;fn dksbZ i{k vius izLrqr tckcqy tckc ds rF;ksa dks lkf{kd :i esa izek.k ds lkFk U;k;ky; dks lUrq"V djus esa lg;ksx djrk gS rks ml ij dkuwu dksbZ vkifRr foi{kh ugha dj ldrkA fygktk vkosnu izR;kFkhZ vkifRr Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA**

(3). The petitioner seeks to assail the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2007 by way of this writ petition. Learned counsel Mr. K.C. Samdariya appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended with reference to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act that the affidavits and documents are required to be filed by the landlord along with the petition for eviction and sub-section (4) of Section 15 though permits filing of rejoinder, but filing of any affidavit or document therewith is not envisaged; and the Tribunal has been in error in permitting filing of the additional evidence along with the rejoinder. Learned counsel further submitted that the documents in question were already in existence and were obviously in the knowledge of the landlords even at the time of filing of the eviction petition and there was no reason for not filing of the same along with the original petition. Learned counsel emphasized on literal rule of interpretation; and while relying on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Raghunath Rai Bareja & Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.: 2006 AIR SCW 6446 submitted that the provision contained in the statute cannot be interpreted by importing any word or phrase thereto and any other aspect of interpretation could be resorted to only when plain words of the statute are ambiguous or if read literally would nullify the object. According to the learned counsel, the words of Section 15, particularly those of its sub-section (4), are clear and unambiguous that no affidavit or document is permitted to be filed with the rejoinder and the course sought to be adopted by the landlord in the present case cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document