MOHD. AKEEL Vs. MOHD. IQBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-applicants (for short, 'the applicants') under Article 227 against the order dtd. 5/8/2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Tonk (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) readwith Sec. 151 CPC and Sec. 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001'); as also the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) readwith Sec. 151 and Sec. 21 (3) of the Act of 2001 readwith Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act have been dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the applicants filed an original petition under Sec. 9 (A), (I) (E) and (F) of the Act of 2001 against the respondents-non applicants (for short, the non applicants') before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the original petition, the applicants filed two applications before the Tribunal - (one) under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) readwith Sec. 151 CPC and Sec. 21(3) of the Act of 2001; and (two) under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) readwith Sec. 151 and Sec. 21 (3) of the Act of 2001 readwith Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal dismissed both the applications vide order dtd. 5/8/2020. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants let out the tenanted premises to Mohd. Iqbal (during his life time) in the year 2001 by way of oral tenancy. Thereafter on 1/8/2005, a rent note with its format was executed by Mohd. Iqbal on a stamp paper of Rs.10.00 in favour of the applicants, where Mohd. Iqbal mentioned that he took the tenanted premises on rent @ Rs.13,000.00 per month. He further submits that in his life time, Mohd. Iqbal paid rent @ Rs.13,000.00 per month to the applicants, for which receipts were issued to him from time to time. Although aforesaid rent note with its format and rent receipts were necessary documents for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, but since the applicant Khalil Ahmed misplaced the said documents, they could not be filed alongwith the original petition. In June, 2019 at the time of cleaning the house on Eid, the said documents were found in an old box, therefore, the applicants filed the application for taking the said documents on record, but since in their reply, the non applicants denied the signatures of Mohd. Iqbal on the aforesaid rent note and rent receipts and stated the same to be forged and fabricated, therefore, they filed another application for taking the report of hand writing expert alongwith reply and statement of Mohd. Iqbal on record, but the Tribunal dismissed the applications in an arbitrary manner. On this count, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside.