SANGEETA DEVI Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-non-applicant-tenant (hereafter 'the tenant') is aggrieved of the order dated 30-11-2017 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereafter 'the Tribunal') in case No.12/2016 closing her defence evidence.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondents-applicantslandlords (hereafter 'the landlords') filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter 'the Act of 2001') for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted shop. On service of notice on the application, the tenant filed reply. Issues were then framed and thereafter evidence of the landlord was completed. The case was then proceeded with the defence evidence of the tenant. On 29-11-2017 an application for adjournment of the case on the ground of illness of Rajkumar, the tenant's husband, was moved and the case adjourned to 30-11-2017. On the said date Rajkumar himself appeared in court and again sought time for defence evidence for the reason of his purported illness. On the Rent Tribunal's query where the tenant Sangeeta and the other defence witness her son Shyam were, Rajkumar stated that they could not be present in court for defence evidence as they were at home to nurse him during his illness.

(3.) The Tribunal considering the fact that the allegedly ill Raj Kumar himself attended court and submitted the application for adjournment of the case for reason of being unwell, and that in any event there was no justification for the absence of other defence witnesses, the tenant and her son, in its discretion refused adjournment at it found the prayer therefor was totally baseless and unsustainable and an attempt of the tenant was to delay the trial in the eviction petition. The defence evidence in the circumstances was closed vide the impugned order dated 30-11-2017. The eviction petition was then set up for final arguments on 14-12- 2017. Hence, this petition.