Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Lakshmi Devi – Appellant
Versus
Ram Prakash – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 591 of 2018
Decided On : 02-02-2018
For the Petitioners: Asha Parihar, Geeta Parihar.
The statutory mandate for expeditious disposal of rent cases and the rejection of applications filed with mala-fide intention to delay the case.
Headnote:
Order 11 Rule 2(1) C.P.C. - Rent Control - U.P. Act 13 of 1972 - Section 21 - Rule 15(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for default in rent payment and bona-fide need for a chamber. The defendant filed an application under Order 11, Rule 2(1) C.P.C. to cross-examine the plaintiffs, which was rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's application was filed to delay the case and concluded that it deserved to be rejected with cost.
Issues: The main issue was the defendant's attempt to delay the case through the application under Order 11, Rule 2(1) C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the statutory mandate for expeditious disposal of rent cases and concluded that the defendant's application was filed with mala-fide intention to delay the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection of the defendant's application.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar holding brief of Ms. Asha Parihar, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 13.11.2017 in P.A. Case No. 61 of 2013, Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Others passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Jhansi.
3. By the impugned order, the Application 20ga filed by the defendant petitioner under order XI Rule 2(1) C.P.C. has been rejected on a cost of Rs. 250/-.
4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly Shop No. 24/1 (new No. 19) Rani Mahal, Jhansi is owned by the plaintiffs-respondents in which the defendant petitioner is a tenant. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an Application under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant petitioner and also on the ground of bona-fide need for chamber for his wife (of plaintiff-respondent No. 1), who is a practising advocate. The plaintiffs-respondents have led their evidences on 11.08.2014. The defendant-petitioner has yet led her evidence. Ultimately, the defendant-petitioner filed her affidavit on 28.01.2017 to which the plaintiffs-respondents have filed rejoinder affidavit. The date in the aforesaid P.A. Case was fixed for 02.03.2017 for argument. Instead of arguing the case, the defendant petitioner filed an Application 20ga dated 02.03.2017 under Order 11, Rule 2(1). The plaintiffs-respondents filed an objection dated 30.04.2017 to the aforesaid application 20ga on the ground that the application is based on false averments and it has been moved mala-fidely.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has stated that the defendant-petitioner is allowing the case to be finalized and with mala-fide intention, she wants to keep it pending on one pretext or the other. He further stated that the entire evidences have already been filed by plaintiffs-respondents and they do want to file any other evidence. By the aforesaid Application, the defendant-petitioner wants a cross-examination of the plaintiffs- respondents which is the purpose of Order 11, Rule 2, C.P.C. The Application of the defendant-petitioner being Paper No. 20ga and the objection of the plaintiffs-respondents was considered by the court below after hearing learned counsels for the parties and it was rejected by order dated 13.11.2017. Aggrieved with this order, the present petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner submits that the court below has arbitrarily rejected the Application. The plaintiffs-respondents were bound to answer the interrogatories as provided under Order 11, Rule 2, C.P.C. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision of Delhi High Court in Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Mukharji, AIR 2003 Delhi 288 (paras-6 and 7).
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner and I find no substance in it.
8. The fact of the case as briefly note above goes to show that the plaintiffs-respondents have already led their evidences by 11.08.2014. The P.A. Case in question was being listed for argument. However, on one pretext or the other, the defendant petitioner has been avoiding the disposal of the case. Expeditious disposal of rent cases is the statutory mandate under Rule 15(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, which provides that as far as possible the Application under Section 21(1) of the Act, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. Undisputedly, the provisions under the Act is a summary proceeding. The P.A. Case in question was filed on 02.09.2013. More than four years have passed and yet the case could not be decided.
9. The plaintiff-respondents have filed an objection to the Application 20ga on the ground that the Application is false and has been filed wit
