HARI RAM Vs. NIDHI GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition comes up at the instance of the petitioner landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') seeking a direction to the Rent Tribunal Kota (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') to expeditiously dispose of the eviction petition No. 49/2011 laid by him before the Tribunal under the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act') for eviction of the respondent -tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant'). The case of the landlord is that the eviction petition in respect of tenanted shop was filed on the ground of bona fide necessity, non user of premises, subletting and material alterations. It has been submitted that from the service of notice on eviction petition and reply thereto filed by the respondent, the eviction petition should have been disposed of within a period of 240 days thereafter as provided in Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act. Counsel submits that proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and for that reason the application of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dispensed with except to the extent provided. It has been submitted that over a period of three years has however elapsed since the filing of the eviction petition before the Tribunal and yet the petition is being adjourned on mere askance of the tenant or otherwise obstructed by mere filing of myriad applications on behalf of the tenant. It has been submitted that even though Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act is directory and the Tribunal is indeed flushed with landlord -tenant disputes, yet that by itself it cannot be a ground enough for completely circumventing the intent of the legislature in promulgating Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act such that an eviction petition ideally to be decided within 240 days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party is kept pending for several years.

(2.) MR . S.C. Mittal, appearing on behalf of the respondent tenant submits that various applications filed by the tenant in the landlord's eviction petition are in consonance with the right of a tenant to set up a relevant defence. Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal is flushed with eviction petitions, inasmuch as several eviction petitions filed as early as in the year 2004 are still pending. The landlord cannot seek to steal a march over others in the queue before the Tribunal and hence no direction should be issued as prayed for expeditious and out of turn disposal of the eviction petition filed in the year 2011.

(3.) I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Mittal with regard to general delays in the disposal of eviction petitions, or that in view of the fact that earlier petitions are pending before the Tribunal since long no direction should be issued for the expeditious disposal of the landlord's petition in the present case. A litigant can have no vested interest in delaying proceeding. There is no statutory provision, decided case or convention that adjudication of litigation should be strictly in terms of its chronological age. Each litigation has its own unique set of issues and circumstances including that of urgency. Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act is indeed directory in nature and ideally requires adjudication of a petition within 240 days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party. Yet the directory nature of Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act cannot be invoked to set at naught the intent of the legislature for expedited disposal of landlord -tenant disputes and the fact that to effectuate the said intent, application of CPC eschewed and only compliance with principles of natural justice warranted.