Nachiketa Jain son of Shri Nand Kishore Jain vs Rent Control Tribunal Dausa

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article

226 /227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging the

judgment & order dt.31.01.2009 passed by learned Rent Control

Tribunal, Kota, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-

tenant has been rejected.

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the

respondent No.2 filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal under

Section 9 of the Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant-

petitioner.

During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2-

landlord filed certain documents along with affidavit, which were

taken on record.

The petitioner-defendant thereafter moved an application

dt.15.04.2008, whereby a prayer has been made to take off the

document Ex.7 to 26 and the rejoinder from record. Vide the

order under challenge, learned Trial Court has rejected the said

application filed by the petitioner-tenant and has held that there is

no prohibition of filing rejoinder and documents which have been

taken on record, in the interest of justice. While passing the

impugned order dt.31.09.2009, learned Trial Court has relied upon

a judgment of this court rendered in 2007(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1636

(Aonp Chand Vs. Nand Kishore & Ors.).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record and so also the judgment of this court

dt.30.07.2007 referred above.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and perusal of Section 15 of the Act 2001, this

Court is of the view that provisions of Section 15 of the Act of

2001, contains no prohibition in filing of affidavits and documents

with rejoinder. The Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of

natural justice. There cannot be a watertight compartment for

fixing rules of procedure and Section 15 of the Act does not lay

and impediment in permitting the parties to lead additional

evidence and to file rejoinder, if they serve the ends of justice.

Similar view has been expressed by this court, in judgment

of Anop Chand (supra). It would be relevant to reproduce relevant

part of the judgment, particularly para Nos.11 to 14, which read

as under:-

"11. Apart from the fact that sub-section (4) of Section 15 contains no prohibition in filing of affidavits and documents with rejoinder, when the Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and has wide powers to regulate its procedure and to call any witness per section 21, it cannot be said that the Tribunal cannot permit filing of additional affidavit or document after filing of the petition or the reply, as the case may be. 12.Thus, if the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, firstly it would only be leading to an absurd result; and secondly, such interpretation could be made only if sub-section (4) of section 15 is read in isolation and in disjunction of other provisions of Section 15 and only when Section 21 of the Act is kept at bay. This Court is clearly of opinion that a procedural provision of the statute cannot be read or interpreted in the manner suggested on behalf of the petitioner. 13.So far the other part of suggestion about the documents being in existence earlier and in the knowledge of the applicants is concerned, apart from the fact that such objection was not stated in the application Annexure-6, it is not the case of the petitioner that the disputed affidavits and documents are not related to the plea taken in rejoinder or are irrelevant in the context of such plea. 14.The Tribunal has rightly taken into comprehension the requirements of law and has rightly overruled the objection raised by the present petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly observed that if the applicant while filing rejoinder does not want to produce any evidence, he cannot be forced to do so; but if he wants to satisfy the court by supporting the plea taken in rejoinder with evidence, the same cannot be objected to by the non applicant."

In view of the above, if learned court below has exercised its

jurisdiction in taking the rejoinder and documents on record and

has rejected subsequent application filed by the petitioner by way

of order impugned, no interference is warranted, particularly when

the petitioner has not challenged the first order; whereby the

rejoinder and the documents were taken on record.

The writ petition is dismissed.