Dayashankar Soni vs Moolchand Jain

Heard.

The present petition is against order dated 27.10.2021 passed by Rent Control Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein who is a defendant has contested a petition before the Rent Control Authority.

The petition was filed by the respondent in the year 2017, during pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Authority certain documents

were placed by the land lord by quoting a provision under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The counsel would submit that the Rent Control Authority has

accepted these documents, though it was produced in photo copy format wherein wrong provisions of CPC was quoted. He further submits that the

acceptance of such documents to the record would be completely illegal. He further submits when the matter traveled up to the Rent Control Tribunal,

the Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated 27.10.2021 has affirmed the said order, wherein the documents have been accepted to the record. He

further submit that the learned Rent Control Authority also failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on it to accept the fact that the provisions were

wrongly quoted while acceptance of the documents and it should have rejected at the thrash hold.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We traveled through the order of both the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal. The records would show that in the year 2017, an

application was filed by respondent/ landlord raising certain grounds and while the stay proceeding was pending before the Rent Control Authority, an

application was filed captioned as Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. The said application (Annexure P-5) was resisted on the ground that, the caption of the

application has been wrongly quoted and as such the application may be rejected. The Rent Control Authority by its order dated 27.02.20218, held that

simply because of the fact that wrong provisions have been quoted in the application, the same cannot be dismissed, accordingly accepted the

documents and the similar view was taken by the Rent Control Tribunal. The substance and the pleading of the application and the prayer which

would be decisive factor in any given case. If the provisions of CPC have been wrongly quoted in any application, it cannot be said that the entire

application would be bad in law. The petitioner herein also failed to convince us on the fact that what prejudice has been caused by acceptance of

such documents. The submission though was made that the document which is a report of some Chattered Engineer about the condition of the house

is in photo copy format and it cannot be accepted but, it is not a matter, what we are dealing at this moment, it is a matter of evidence and acceptance

of the documents at the time of marking as exhibit may arise. As on present, we are unable to accept the proposition forwarded by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, therefore, simply marking the wrong provision on the application will not prejudice the right of the parties. The petitioner also

failed to explain, what prejudice has been caused to him by such acceptance of the documents. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the

opinion that this petition wants no interference by this Court.

In view of this, the petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.