AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Rastogi, J.—Appellant-petitioner submits that in the pending proceedings before the Rent Tribunal initiated at her behest under Sec. 6 & 7 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001, after the written statement came on record, she moved two separate applications; (i) under Sec. 21(3) of Act 2001 seeking permission for cross-examination of the witnesses; and (ii) other application was filed for taking her rejoinder on record provided under Sec. 14(3) of Act, 2001. Both the applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by separate orders on 16.05.2012 and both the orders of self-same date came to be assailed by the appellant-petitioner by filing writ petition in this Court. As the order being of common date i.e. 16.05.2012, the ld. Single Judge examined the order dt. 16.05.2012, where the ld. Tribunal declined to grant permission under Sec. 14(3) for taking rejoinder on record and observed that if the application seeking condonation of delay in filing rejoinder is moved, the ld. Tribunal may consider the same for taking the rejoinder on recorded as provided under Sec. 14(3) of Act, 2001.
The appellant-petitioner submits that as regards her another misc. application filed for cross-examining the witnesses, as provided under Sec. 21(3) of Act, 2001, dismissed by the ld. Tribunal vide order dt. 16.05.2012, there is no finding of the ld. Single Judge and it appears that the same was overlooked while examining her grievance regarding cross-examining the witnesses for which permission was declined by the Tribunal.
It has also been informed by the appellant that the original application filed before the Tribunal being 239/2011 is coming up for further consideration on 10.04.2013 and if appropriate orders are not passed by this Court, her rights will be seriously jeopardized.
Counsel for respondent-2, on the other hand, submits that the ld. Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by appellant vide order dt. 05.07.2012 and it can be bonafidely believed that other contentions may not find favour, as such, the same were not required to be adjudicated by the ld. Single Judge.
From the perusal of prayer in the petition, we do find that the appellant-petitioner challenged both the orders of Tribunal dt. 16.05.2012 disposing of applications filed separately under Sec. 14(3) & 21(3) of Act, 2001, however, the ld. Single Judge disposed of one of the application filed under Sec. 14(3) of Act, 2001 under the order impugned but at the same time we do not find any finding regarding the dispute which was raised under Sec. 21(3) of Act, 2001 seeking permission for cross-examining the witness which the Tribunal declined vide order dt. 16.05.2012 and that certainly requires to be examined by the ld. Single Judge.
Accordingly, we do not find any error as regards the order of ld. Single Judge disposing the application filed under Sec. 14(3) of Act, 2001 but as we have noticed that another application under Sec. 21(3) of Act, 2001 has not been taken note of by ld. Single Judge, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. Single Judge to that extent as indicated above.
As the matter is coming up before the Tribunal on 10.04.2013, as informed, the further proceedings before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 239/2011 may be deferred for some time till the ld. Single Judge disposes of the writ petition.
Accordingly, the special appeal stands partly allowed and the order of ld. Single Judge impugned dt. 05.07.2012 read with 01.08.2012 to the extent "In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed." is set aside and the matter is remitted to the ld. Single Judge for examining the order dt. 16.05.2012 disposing of the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 21(3) of Act, 2001. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Single Bench on 22.05.2013.