BRIJMOHAN SHARMA Vs. PURSHOTTAM DAS GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment dated 1.4.2016 whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' hereafter) has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar holding that the judgment impugned before it did not suffer from any illegality or error as it was based on the un-rebutted evidence of the respondent-landlord in proceedings in which the petitioner-tenant despite service and filing appearance through the counsel and did not file reply nor lead any evidence in rebuttal.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner tenant submitted that though despite the service of the eviction petition and filing Vakalatnama on 19.8.2006, neither reply to the petition for revision of rent under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was flied nor any evidence led on behalf of the tenant, consequent to which the opportunity to file reply was closed on 21.9.2006 and thereafter final judgment was passed on 30.10.2006 holding that the rent payable was liable to be revised yearly @ 5% from the base of Rs. 1000.00 per month in 1973, the tenant's application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure should have been allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, and the appeal thereafter adjudicated. The Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in dismissing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure as also the appeal. Counsel submitted that function of the courts is to do justice and not facilitate the capitalization on the error of a litigant. He submitted that in this view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal to allow the application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure in the interest of justice, take the petitioner-tenant's evidence on record and then adjudicate the said appeal, unless in its estimation the matter required to be remanded to the Tribunal.

(3.) Heard. Considered.