ANOP CHAND Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is defending a petition filed by his landlords before the Rent Tribunal, Nagaur (Case No. 12/2006) for recovery of arrears of rent, for revision of rent, and for eviction on the grounds, inter alia, of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, and the tenant acquiring suitable accommodation. After filing of the reply by the present petitioner, the respondents- landlords filed their rejoinder and along with the rejoinder put in certain documents Exhibit 16 to 18 and so also affidavits of the applicant Kamal Kishore and one witness Naresh. THE petitioner raised objection that such additional affidavits and documents were filed with the rejoinder without there being any permission or direction from the Tribunal in that regard; and that Section 15 (4) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') provides only for filing of rejoinder but there is no provision that permits filing of affidavits and documents with rejoinder.

(2.) THE objection so raised by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20. 07. 2007 (Annex. 7) with the following observations:- ***

(3.) IT is of course true that sub-section (4) does not say that the petitioner may file rejoinder accompanied by affidavits and documents and merely permits filing of rejoinder within 30 days of the date of service of reply; however, an occasion to file rejoinder would arise essentially when some averment or plea taken in the reply by the tenant calls for its replication from the applicant-landlord. If the suggestion that for want of omission of specific permission under sub-section (4) of Section 15 no affidavit or document could be filed with the rejoinder is accepted, it would lead to an absurd proposition that although the applicant may take pleadings in replication of any reply averments, yet cannot support and substantiate such plea taken in replication by way of oral or documentary evidence. Such result is neither envisaged by the statute nor could be countenanced.