Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.4.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in case No. 2/09, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues, has been rejected.

2. The respondent filed a petition u/S. 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act" hereinafter) for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity, non user of the premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of petition, the petitioner acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for his requirement and the requirement of the respondent of the premises in order to carry out the building work. The petition is being contested by the petitioner herein by filing reply thereto. It is stated that the respondent in the rejoinder to the reply, the respondent came out with the entirely a new case by adding the pleadings which are not consistent with the pleadings set out in the petition originally filed. It is stated that the plea of denial of title, availability of the alternate premises with the petitioner and clarification of the title of the disputed premises etc. have been added by way of rejoinder.

3. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application praying for framing of the issues on the ground that for convenience and a right decision of the case, it is absolutely necessary.

4. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by just saying that the framing of the issues is not appropriate in light of the Rules. Hence, this petition.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Tribunal had committed grave error in rejecting the application in cursory manner by a non speaking order. The learned counsel submitted that the application has been rejected by just mentioning that the framing of the issues is not appropriate in light of the Rules, however, the learned Tribunal has not referred any such rule which bars framing of the issues in the matters filed under the Act. The learned counsel submitted that when the controversy, as in the instant case, involves various disputed questions of facts, the framing of the issues is an essential exercise in the interest of justice to enable the parties to lead the specific evidence on the issues involved. The learned counsel submitted that the issues are framed with an object to ascertain the real dispute between the parties, to narrow the area of conflict and to see where the two sides differ, therefore, even if the Act does not makes specific provision regarding framing of the issues, there is no reason as to why for the purpose of clarifying the points in dispute, the Rent Tribunal should not follow the procedure laid down in this regard under Order XIV of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC'). In this regard the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "J.K. Iron & Steel Company Limited, Kanpur vs. Iron & Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur." AIR 1956 SC, 231. The learned counsel contended that the material facts alleged by one party and either denied or not admitted by the other party can be decided in just and proper manner only when the points for determination are formulated. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in "Lalita vs. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Udaipur City (South), Udaipur & Ors.," 2005(2) WLC (Raj.) 751.

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, the Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the CPC but it shall be guided by the principle of natural justice, which includes in itself the fairness of procedure and therefore, looking to the dispute involved, if for proper adjudication it is necessary, the tribunal is under an obligation to frame the issues. Relying on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document