MAHESH Vs. DEVKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5th July, 2012, whereby the newly established Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-tenants for leading of additional evidence. The facts of the case are that on the basis of pleadings of parties, for the convenience of the adjudication of the eviction petition filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Act of 2001') before Tribunal, the Tribunal on 4th May, 2009 framed three issues. On the matter coming up before the Tribunal on 16th April, 2012, the Tribunal took a view that on the basis of pleadings of the parties and for clarity in the adjudication two additional issues be framed.

(2.) Consequently, the number of issues framed stood enhanced from 3 to 5. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner moved an application on 9th May, 2012 before the Tribunal stating that in view of framing of two additional issues, in accordance with the principles underlining Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the defendant-tenant, petitioner herein - be allowed to lead additional evidence. The learned Tribunal considered the matter and held that the proceedings under the Act of 2001 are summary in nature and distinct and different from the proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'), albeit, resort would be had to the principles of CPC where warranted. The learned Tribunal noted that proceedings under the Act of 2001 were to be regulated in accordance with Section 15 of the Act of 2001 whereunder evidence in support of the pleadings of the respective parties was to accompany the pleadings themselves. It held that the Act of 2001 did not mandate the framing of issues as framed under Order 14 of CPC but issues before the Tribunal were framed at the Tribunal's discretion only for the convenience of the Tribunal for better clarity in adjudicating the dispute before it. The learned Tribunal held that until the pleadings were amended, there was no occasion for additional evidence irrespective of tinkering with the issue earlier framed for clarity in the determination of the dispute before it.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was absolutely correct in holding that summary trials under the Act of 2001, without amendment of pleadings, there was no question of allowing the non-applicants/petitioners to lead additional evidence in view of the fact that pleadings of the respective parties before the Tribunal under law were accompanied by evidence in the first instance. Pleadings having been not amended, there was no occasion to bring in additional evidence. I find no perversity or misdirection in law in the impugned order dated 5th July, 2012 passed by the newly established Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The writ petition has no force. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.