TRILOK CHAND JAIN Vs. MOHAN DAS FATEHPURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 7 -7 -2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5 Jaipur cum Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal').

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 7 -7 -2014 passed by the Tribunal. By the said order the Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner -non applicant (hereinafter 'the non -applicant') under Order 8 Rule 1(3) and Section 151 CPC for taking on record certain documents in evidence belatedly at the stage of final argument on the eviction petition filed by the respondent -applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant'). The Tribunal found that the documents sought to be taken on record were telephone bills pertaining to 2007, 2008 & 2009 and income tax returns pertaining to 2008 - 2009 and 2009 -2010, which were such documents that were in possession of the non applicant at all times and there was no plausible justification for failure to file them along with the reply to the eviction petition in 2008. Reference was made to the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act') where under all evidences were to be filed by the non applicant -tenant along with the reply to eviction petition accompanied by affidavits in evidence. The Tribunal was of the view that in the event the documents sought to be filed belatedly were taken on record at the stage of final arguments, it would delay the trial of the eviction petition and entail a unjustifiable contravention of the provisions of the 2001 Act, whereunder every eviction petition was to be ordinarily disposed of within 240 days of the service of notice of the petition on the opposite party.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that no eviction petition should be allowed to be adjudicated without addressing all evidence relevant to its fair and just adjudication. He has submitted that the documents sought to be filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC, were inadvertently left out and could not be filed along with the reply to eviction petition. The delay in filing of the documents at the stage of final hearing of the eviction petition could be compensated with costs to recompense the respondent applicant.