RAMKUMAR Vs. NARSINGH DAS MODI H.U.F.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the order dt. 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner as per Section 19(9) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Hanumangarh by order dt. 18.4.2007 accepted the application preferred by the respondent to get the rented premises vacated. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal wherein the application under Sec. 19(9) of the Act of 2001 to bring on record certain additional facts and certain photographs. It was desired to substantiate the contention that the bonafide necessity as existing at the time of disposal of the application by the Tribunal, is no more in existence. The application was rejected with assertion that the question regarding availability of shops was considered and a finding about ownership of the shops with Om Prakash, Smt. Rami Devi and Anand Swaroop was also given by the original Court. However, on examination of the order dt. 18.4.2007, it does not reveal that the issue as such was considered by the original Tribunal as stated by the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) As a matter of fact, as per sub-Section (9) of Section 19 of the Act of 2001, the Tribunal is required to ascertain relevance of the facts which are desired to be brought on record. Nothing is said by the Tribunal as to how the facts sought to be brought on record are not relevant to reach at a just decision, thus, the application preferred by the petitioner has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal as thrusted under Sec. 19(9).