RENU SHARMA BHAWAN Vs. RAM KISHORE KALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Shrimati Renu Sharma Bhawan with prayer that the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, be directed to decide the Original Application No.263/2006 of the petitioner at an early date, which was filed by her for eviction of the respondent on the ground of bona-fide necessity of her son.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after completion of the pleadings of the parties the matter reached the stage of evidence in 2007. The original application was filed on 31.03.2006. The respondent filed reply thereto on 07.09.2006. The matter reached the stage of evidence of the petitioner in the beginning of the year 2007. The petitioner has filed affidavits of three witnesses, namely, PW-1 Surendra Kumar Bhawan, PW-2 Raghuveer Bhawan and PW-3 Girdhari Singh. First two witnesses appeared before the Rent Tribunal for cross-examination on 12.07.2007 and since then they appeared before the Tribunal on different dates but till date only one of them has been cross-examined i.e. PW-1. It is because the respondent filed application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC on 29.07.2009. The matter remained pending on that application till the application was finally rejected on 20.01.2011. On 25.08.2011 the respondent again filed application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC and the matter remained pending on that application, which came to be dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 17.07.2012. The respondent thereafter filed review application on 17.09.2012, which was rejected vide order dated 01.11.2013 with costs of Rs. 500/-. On 21.03.2014 the respondent again filed application under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC to delay the matter. The said application was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that as per intention of legislature and in view of Section 15(5) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the eviction petition is to be decided within a period of 240 days but due to delayed tactics being adopted by the respondent, it could not be decided despite lapse of nine years. So much so the evidence of the petitioner had began in April, 2007 but the same could not be completed despite eight years having gone by since then. Learned counsel in order to substantiate the arguments, has referred to certified copy of orders of the Rent Tribunal placed on the record.