IMDAD HUSSAIN Vs. FAKRUDDIN HABIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dt. 30.6.15 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Rent Case No. 674/14, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondent -landlord to appear again for cross examination on rent note produced, stands rejected. The respondent -landlord has filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner -tenant from a commercial premises, a shop on the grounds; (i) reasonable and bona fide necessity, (ii) the tenant having acquired suitable premises adequate for his requirement and (iii) non user of the premises let out continuously for a period of six months. The petition is being contested by the petitioner -tenant by filing a reply thereto. The evidence of the respondent -landlord was completed on 27.10.14 and the matter was posted for the evidence of petitioner -tenant. The petitioner -tenant did not appear for cross examination despite opportunities being granted, however, an application was filed on his behalf seeking direction to the respondent -landlord to produce the rent note. The rent note produced by the respondent -landlord was taken on record and the petitioner tenant was extended last opportunity to produce the evidence. At this stage, the petitioner -tenant preferred an application seeking directions to the respondent -landlord to appear again for cross examination, on the rent note produced. The application preferred by the petitioner -tenant stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the shop occupied by the petitioner consists of two portions; one let out by the respondent -landlord and another by his brother Jakir. Learned counsel submitted that the shop in question let out by the two brothers is a single shop and therefore, the portion thereof let out by the petitioner -tenant cannot be vacated. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner intends to cross examine the respondent -landlord on the rent note produced for clarification of this aspect of the matter and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) It is to be noticed that the evidence of the respondent -landlord was completed on 27.10.14 and the matter was posted for evidence of the petitioner -tenant. The matter was adjourned on the request being made on behalf of the petitioner -tenant thrice and thereafter, the petitioner -tenant filed an application seeking directions to the respondent -landlord to produce the rent note. The rent note was produced by the landlord on the next date of hearing and the last opportunity was extended to the petitioner -tenant to produce the evidence. At this stage, on 28.5.15, the petitioner -tenant preferred an application seeking directions to the respondent -landlord to appear for cross examination on the rent note produced.