LAXMAN DAS Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dt. 12.10.2012 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the Rent Tribunal refused to frame the issues as provided in Order 14 of CPC in the eviction application filed by the respondent/landlady seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit shop No. 9 in question, situated at Masuria Section 7, Jodhpur for the bonafide necessity of her son. The petitioner/tenant is carrying on the business of "Kirana in the name and style of M/s. Durga Kirana Store in the shop in question. The learned trial Court while passing the order impugned has observed that the summary proceedings prescribed under Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001') does not specifically require the Rent Tribunal to frame the issues and Rent Tribunals are not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; but is guided by the principles of natural justice, and the other provisions of the Act of 2001 itself, and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner/tenant when the evidence was already completed by the parties, for framing the issue cannot be entertained; and thus, the application of the petitioner/tenant was rejected with cost of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, Mr. Narendra Thanvi, relied upon the decisions, which decisions were also cited before the learned Rent Tribunal in the case of Central Academy Educational Society vs. M/s. The Pratap Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2010 2 RajLW 1327 and submitted that if a serious dispute is raised by the defendant/tenant and in the present case, the petitioner/tenant had averred that the son of the landlady, for whose need the eviction was sought, was already doing some business at some different premises; and in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have framed the issue in this regard and then allowed the parties to lead evidence and then decide the issues in question. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order, which is a non-speaking one, deserves to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and issues should be framed in such application under Sec. 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady relying upon later decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Fakhruddin vs. Rent Tribunal, Ajmer & Ors., 2011 1 RajLW 689 submitted that the later decision after considering the previous decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Central Academy Educational Society, and Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia, 2001 AIR(SC) 490 has found that in view of summary proceedings prescribed under Sec. 21 of the new Rent Control Act of 2001, the Tribunal cannot be compelled to frame the issues in an eviction application filed before it under Sec. 9 of the Act of 2001.