SUSHILA DEVI Vs. RAGHUVAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 16.04.2013, whereby the Rent Control Tribunal, Jhunjhunu has dismissed an application dated 10.04.2013 filed by the petitionernon-applicant No.2 for recalling of the respondent-applicant Raghuvar Dayal for cross-examination after his evidence and cross-examination having been closed on 28.5.2008.

(2.) From the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner-non-applicant No.2 is the wife of the respondent-non-applicant No.1 against whom the respondent-applicant Raghuvar Dayal had filed a suit for eviction inter alia on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity as also on the ground of default in the payment of revised rent. Raghuvar Dayal was examined before the Rent Tribunal on his affidavit in evidence and his cross-examination closed on 28.05.2008. Thereafter two other witnesses for the respondent-applicant in support of the eviction petition were examined. At no point of time, during the cross-examination of the respondent-applicant Raghuvar Dayal, the counsel for the petitioner-non-applicant No.2 present all through out before the Tribunal sought to cross-examine him. Raghuvar Dayal was examined by the counsel for the other non-applicant No.1, the husband of the petitioner-non-applicant. It has been noted by the Rent Tribunal in the impugned order that as husband and wife, the interests of the two non-applicants before the Rent Tribunal were common and in the event any separate cross-examination was to be done at the instance of the petitioner-non-applicant No.2, it would have been sought for at the time of cross-examination of Raghuvar Dayal by her husband's counsel. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner-non-applicant's earlier counsel was subsequently substituted by a new counsel Shri Zahir Mohammad on 04.03.2013, the Rent Tribunal in the facts of the case concluded that the application for recall of Raghuvar Dayal for cross-examination filed five years subsequent to the closure of Raghuvar Dayal's evidence was nothing but an attempt to obstruct the final adjudication of the eviction petition in spite of its long pendency and this Court in a separate proceeding having directed under its order dated 22.02.2013 that the eviction petition at the instance of the respondent-applicant Raghuvar Dayal be adjudicated within a period of eight months. Consequently, taking note of delay of five years and the circumstances as obtaining at the time of cross-examination of Raghuvar Dayal, the Rent Tribunal come to the conclusion that the application for recall of Raghuvar Dayal for cross-examination was not so much for vindication of any right or correction of any prejudice, but a mere attempt to obstruct and delay the adjudication of the eviction petition. So holding the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the application for recall of Raghuvar Dayal for cross-examination at a cost of Rs.300/-

(3.) Mr. S.C. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner-non-applicant, has submitted that the order dated 16.04.2013, passed by the Rent Tribunal is vitiated by perversity and in fact there was no delay whatsoever by the petitioner-non-applicant in moving the application for recall of Raghuvar Dayal for cross-examination. He submits that even though Raghuvar Dayal's cross-examination closed on 28.05.2008, yet other witnesses for the applicant were examined upto the year 2010. He submits that thereafter the matter was pending before this Court and there was no occasion for the petitioner-non-applicant to move an application for recall of Raghuvar Dayal for cross-examination. Counsel submits that the recall of the respondent-applicant, Raghuvar Dayal, for cross examination would not entail any prejudice to him inasmuch as this Court under its order dated 22.02.2013 had granted eight months time for final adjudication of the eviction petition and all that the petitioner-non-applicant No.2 seeks only one day time to cross examine Raghuvar Dayal.