AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Goutam Bhaduri, J
Heard.
The instant petition is against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the learned Rent Control Authority whereby an order of eviction was passed, was affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner and the right to cross-examination of the witnesses, which were produced by the tenant/petitioner was closed. He would further submit that because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the witnesses or the counsel did not appear. Consequently, the Court should have given the proper & fair opportunity of hearing and the rules of natural justice should have been followed. Consequently for this illegality the order of the Rent Control Authority is required to be set aside. He would further submit that the Tribunal too failed to take into account that the Rent Control Authority has failed to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby the wrong finding of dismissal is recorded.
Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner/tenant, but despite that he failed to avail opportunity and deliberately avoided to keep his witnesses present. He would submit that the events would be evident from order-sheets that the proper opportunity was given to the tenant many a times but because of fault of tenant he himself had invited the situation. It is stated this petition before this Court is misconceived and wrong facts have been stated, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
As per the averments, the respondent filed a petition before the Rent Control Authority under the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2011) that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.3100/- and from July, 2010 he has not paid the rent. Therefore, initially a notice was served in the year 2015 and six months time was given to make good the payment and to vacate the premises as per the provisions of the Act, 2011. However, the tenant/petitioner neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises. Eventually an application for vacating the suit premises was filed. Learned Rent Control Authority after hearing, passed an order for eviction of the tenant. The said order having been challenged before the Rent Control Tribunal under the Act, 2011, the same was affirmed.
The main thrust of argument before this Court by the petitioner is that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner tenant and it was stated that because of the Covid -19 Pandemic the counsel could not appear. Therefore, on this ground he may be given the proper opportunity of hearing. In order to ascertain these facts we went through the order-sheets of Rent Control Authority.
The order-sheets would show that as per Section 12 (2) of the Act, 2011 the application was filed before the Rent Control Authority, Raipur on 03.10.2016. After 7 hearing the notice was served to the petitioner on 19.04.2017. Thereafter, after three hearings on 24.06.2017 the written statement was filed. Then the case was adjourned from time to time for framing of issues and as many as six dates passed and issues were framed on 06.09.2017. Subsequently, list of witnesses was given and after 5 dates on 13.11.2017 affidavit was filed by the landlord under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and another application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The said application was not pressed at any time and remained undecided, and the case was adjourned from time to time.
On 11.01.2019 the copy of the affidavit as filed by the witnesses of the landlord, was again served to the petitioner/tenant. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for different dates and on 16.06.2019 the date was sought for by tenant to cross-examine the witness though the witnesses were present. Again one date passed and on 15.07.2019, the landlord/respondent was again present along with his Advocate but non-applicant was absent and since last chance was given on the earlier date, the right to cross-examine of tenant was closed and the next date was given on 31.07.2019. On 31.07.2019 an application was again filed by the tenant/petitioner to give a right to cross-examine on the health ground, the same was allowed and again the right to cross-examination was given to tenant on 08.08.2019. On 08.08.2019 few of the witnesses were cross-examined and thereafter the case was fixed for non-applicant evidence on 03.09.2019. Few of the witnesses of landlord were examined on 26.09.2019 and thereafter 2-3 dates passed, and again the case was fixed for cross-examination of the non-applicant witnesses.
The order-sheets show that on 22.11.2019 an affidavit was filed by the tenant/petitioner under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and the case was thereafter fixed for cross-examination of witnesses. Subsequent thereto 4 dates were given in between from 22.11.2019 to 25.02.2020 and because of the fact that the witnesses on behalf of tenant were not appearing, their right to lead evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an application to give him opportunity to get their witnesses cross-examined, but the said application was dismissed on 07.03.2020 and the parties were directed to place their submission. The order-sheets would show that on 16.03.2020, the parties were present which bears the signature at the margin of the order-sheet but subsequent to it on 25.11.2020, 16.12.2020 and thereafter on 28.12.2020 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. The tenant (NA) again appeared on 18.01.2021 and he was given an opportunity to place his submission/written arguments, if so advised, within three days but despite that nothing was done, eventually the orders were passed by Rent Control Authority.
10.Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 2011 contemplates that all proceedings before the Rent Controller would ordinarily conclude within six months from the date of first appearance of the respondent. In this case, the respondent appeared on 19.04.2017 and proceedings were concluded on 30.01.2021 after 4 years. The conduct of the tenant/petitioner would show that initially when the evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the landlord under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC on 13.11.2017, on some pretext or the other the cross-examination was avoided despite the witnesses appeared. First time in the month of September, 2019 one of the witnesses was cross-examined by tenant (NA) and interim applications were also filed. The petitioner tenant therefore, resorted to protract the trial and harsh truth came to fore of dates after dates. The tenant chose to remain in denial mode to face the trial.
Therefore, for two years almost the proceedings were adjourned ''at the behest of the petitioner/tenant''. In the month of November, 2019 the tenant filed the list of witness subsequently, the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination after their statements were filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. For consecutive 5 dates despite the warning given by the Rent Control Authority, the witnesses of tenant remained absent under these circumstances right to cross-examination was closed. The proceeding would show that on 15.07.2019 when initially right to cross-examination of the landlord witnesses was closed, it was reopened when an application was filed by the tenant. Therefore, bias cannot be inferred.
The rules of natural justice are meant for the proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Such phraseology cannot be used to protract the trial to read it in favour of one side of litigant. Natural justice denotes the fair opportunity to both. The conduct of the tenant/petitioner would show that he made deliberate attempt to protract the trial and beyond all mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 2011, to make pursuits of justice as long and arduous battle for landlord as proceedings before RCA continued for four years.
Under these, circumstances, taking into the nature and conduct of the petitioner, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that no fair opportunity was granted during the trial and object of speedy trial was defeated.
In the circumstances of this case as perusal of the order sheet do not inspire much confidence of speedy trial, therefore, to accentuate the object of Section 9(2) of the Act, 2011 to avoid the frequent adjournment, copy of this order may be circulated to the Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal to uphold the object of the Act, 2011 and to avoid to project the State as an adversarial litigant.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of all merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the threshold.