LAXMINARAIN Vs. ADDL CIVIL JUDGE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed two applications filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has approached this court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner in respect of a shop, situated at Bharat Talkies, Sikar. The petitioner had filed his written statement in which he denied the bona fide necessity of the plaintiff, and the fact of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed two applications under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record. By order dated 8.2.2013, the learned trial court has dismissed both the applications. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Manish Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the respondent has filed the eviction suit against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide necessity, and nuisance and other grounds. However, in his plaint he has mentioned the fact that since the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is inapplicable to Chomu, therefore, on 19.4.2005 he had issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the petitioner. However, according to the learned counsel, even prior to notice dated 19.4.2005, the plaintiff-respondent had issued a notice on 12.5.2003. The notice dated 12.5.2003 would contradict the contents of the notice dated 19.4.2005. Therefore, it was imperative to bring the notice dated 12.5.2003 on record.