FAKHRUDDIN Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2010, this writ petition has been filed. The order aforesaid was passed on an application moved by the Petitioner invoking the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code of Civil Procedure ') read with Sections 18 and 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001 ').

(2.) The Petitioner came up with the case that he, is a tenant in property bearing No. 88/16 situated at Purani Mandi, Ajmer. The landlord filed an application for eviction without impleading him as party Respondent and thereby obtained an order of eviction against a person who is not even a tenant. Petitioner could know about the order of the Rent Tribunal when it came for execution. The Petitioner made an application for setting aside the order of eviction and possession. The Rent Tribunal admitted the application for its consideration and even passed a conditional interim order against eviction from the premises in dispute provided Petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month as a rent, which he is regularly depositing. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though his application was taken for consideration, however, for its decision, issues have not been framed. The Petitioner accordingly made an application for framing of issues for its decision so that parties may lead their evidence accordingly. This is on the pretext that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are entirely applicable to the matters covered by the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the application holding that matter would be decided based on the material available on record. This is more so when the parties lead their evidence at the initial stage itself. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that without framing issues, proper adjudication of his application would not be possible. A specific reference of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has been given to show that procedure of the Rent Tribunal has to be as per substantive law applicable to the matters and in the present matter, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for framing of the issues. Reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Central Academy Educational Society v. The Pratap Commercial Company Private Limited,2010 2 RJT 890 so also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, 2001 AIR(SC) 490 has been given.

(3.) I have considered submissions of learned Counsel for Petitioner.