ATUL KACHHAL Vs. HEM RAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter has come up on the board for orders on application bearing inward No. 55282 dt. 18.11.2014 filed by respondent No. 1 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating interim order dt. 14.10.2014 by which this Court stayed further proceedings in Application No. 860/06 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, for a period of six weeks, but this Court is inclined to decide the main petition itself as the arguments on the application would suffice disposal of the main writ petition itself. Hence the writ petition is heard on merits. This writ petition has been filed by tenant petitioner Atul Kachhal against order dt. 30.05.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Additional Chief Metropolitan No. 5 and Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, 'the Rent Tribunal'). The aforesaid order is a composite order deciding two applications together, one filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the C.P.C.') and another under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., both based on the same facts. While in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., the petitioner tenant had prayed for permission to incorporate certain facts in his reply to the eviction application, which, according to him, were based on subsequent development, namely, that during pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the landlord constructed a wall, which reduced the width of main gate by two feet. In application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the prayer was made that the photographs of such construction of wall should be taken on record.

(2.) THE petitioner initially filed Writ Petition No. 7894/2014 challenging the order dt. 30.05.2014 to the extent it decided his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001. This Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment dt. 15.09.2014 by quashing and setting aside the order dt. 30.05.2014 and remanded the case back to the Rent Tribunal for deciding the application under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. afresh. It was also directed that the application shall be decided within a period of one month from the next date assigned by the Rent Tribunal in the eviction application. The Rent Tribunal has, in compliance aforesaid remand order, decided the applications again vide order dt. 15.10.2014 and rejected the same.

(3.) SHRI Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for respondents assisted by Miss Pallavi Mehta, has raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition contending that the order dt. 30.05.2014 was a composite one and decided two applications and that the petitioner, if he has not chosen to challenge that part of the order by which application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. was dismissed and made limited challenge in earlier writ petition against that order, which has been quashed in toto. Present writ petition cannot be maintained especially when the Rent Tribunal has, taking it to be an order of quashment in entirety, decided both applications again by order dt. 15.10.2014.