Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Neeraj Sharma S/o Shri Prem Narain Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Shri Kishori Lal Agarwal – Respondent
ORDER :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led by the petitioner-tenant to impugned order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the application filed by the him for examining the allegedly forged CD from Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in connection with voice analysis of the respondent-landlord regarding the payment of receipt of rent, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) was submitted by the respondent-landlord against him before the Tribunal on the ground of his bona fide necessity for the premises in question. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid petition was submitted by the petitioner-tenant wherein it was denied by him that no rent was due, rather, an excessive rent of Rs.56,400/- was paid to the respondent-landlord and even a counter-claim in this regard was also submitted by the petitioner-tenant for refund of the said amount. Counsel submits that on 03.08.2016 around 9:20 P.M., the respondent-landlord came at the
The court ruled that a tenant's application for forensic analysis became infructuous when the landlord did not pursue the claim for excess rent.
The admissibility and relevance of electronic records as documentary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and the importance of allowing the comparison of voice samples for substantive evidence.
The court affirmed that eviction under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act does not require prior notice for arrears of rent, focusing on bonafide necessity.
The denial of the opportunity to adduce evidence renders the exhibition of documents meaningless, emphasizing the necessity for competent witnesses to prove documents in court.
The landlord's bona fide need at the time of filing the suit continues even after the sale of the property to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and can only interven....
The court emphasized that a landlord’s bona fide necessity for eviction must be upheld if substantiated by evidence, and the scope of review under Article 227 is limited to supervisory jurisdiction, ....
The court allowed the introduction of additional evidence to establish ownership in an eviction case, emphasizing the need for complete adjudication under Section 13-B of the Act.
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
