RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. JANKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 14th October, 2014 passed by Rent Tribunal, Ajmer by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2001) for production of documents has been dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001, the Tribunal was required to issue direction to the landlord to produce the requisite documents, which are necessary for disposal of the matter. The learned counsel has cited a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Gupta Agencies & Ors. vs. Ram Krishan Akar & Ors., (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 744/2000) decided on 31.7.2000 in support of his contention and contended that the landlord could not have refused to produce any document. In fact, in her cross examination, the respondent (landlord) has herself admitted that there are six shops in her possession and further admitted that she had purchased the disputed premises in the year 1976 which was a plot measuring 500 Sq. Yds.. Thereafter, she had constructed six shops thereon. The sale deed is with her. She has further admitted that out of 500 Sq. Yds. of plot, she had to sell a plot measuring 225 -250 Sq. Yds., on account of marriage of her daughter. She has further admitted that the part of the plot was sold to one Narottam Lalwani in the year 1992 -93. A specific question was put to her whether size of the shop was 12 ft. X 20 ft., to which she gave evasive reply. It was also admitted by her that she had two other shops in her possession.

(2.) PERUSAL of the impugned order indicates that the learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner holding that the landlord -respondent cannot be compelled to produce the documents and it is for the petitioner -tenant to obtain copies of those documents from the concerned department and produce. When the landlord has admitted the availability of total number of shops, but it is for the petitioner to prove whether any of those shops are lying vacant by producing evidence, oral or documentary. In the face of admission of the landlord, the petitioner -tenant can independently prove that any of those shops are lying vacant with the landlord/respondent and landlord has got sufficient shops in her possession, which are vacant and therefore, necessity of the landlord for the shop in question is not bona fide.