ARUN KUMAR Vs. DHARMCHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by tenant-petitioner challenging order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the Application No. 69/2009 filed by tenant-petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC') for summoning certain documents, has been dismissed. The tenant-petitioner, in the aforesaid application, prayed for a direction to landlord-respondents to produce on record rent-notes of other three shops, which they have let out to different persons, to enable him to show as to when such shops were let out and whether the shops were let out after filing of the eviction petition. The Rent Tribunal rejected the application on the premise that plea of personal bona-fide necessity has to be proved by landlord and, therefore, summoning of those documents would not be said to be necessary.

(2.) Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, learned counsel for tenant-petitioner, assailed the correctness of the impugned order and argue that the Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate that landlord-respondents themselves have set up the plea of personal bona fide necessity. At the same time, the landlord-respondent - Dharamchand Jain admitted in his cross-examination before the Rent Tribunal that he had let out three other shops about two years and three months ago. His statement was recorded on 27.09.2011 and that would mean that the shops were let out soon after filing of eviction petition and the eviction petition was filed on 25.11.2009. Summoning of the rent-notes is necessary to establish that personal necessity of the landlord-respondent was neither bona-fide nor genuine. The rent-notes were the best evidence to prove the case of tenant-petitioner that shops were in fact let out by landlord-respondents after filing of the eviction petition and that even though the landlord-respondents had three other shops, yet they chose not to make use of them for their personal necessity and have filed eviction petition against tenant-petitioner. According to tenant-petitioner, the need of landlord-respondents in this situation, would neither be a bona-fide nor genuine.

(3.) Shri Mohit Gupta, learned counsel for landlord-respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the landlord-respondent has not only admitted in his cross-examination that he let out the shops about two years and three months before recording of his statement but in the reply to the application filed by tenant-petitioner under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, he admitted the fact that the shops were let out by him prior to filing of the eviction petition. The Rent Tribunal has thus rightly rejected the application of the tenant-petitioner filed under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC. The Rent Tribunal also held that burden of proving the persona bona-fide necessity is on the landlord-respondent and, therefore, summoning of the rent notes may not be necessary.