RAMESH KUMAR Vs. CHANDU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the similar orders dated 6-8-08 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petitions Nos. 3944/08, 3945/08 and 3946/08. By the orders under appeal, the aforesaid writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein assailing the validity of orders dated 24-5-98 passed in Rent Petition No. 63/07 and 58/ 07 and order dated 28-5-98 passed in Rent petition No. 59/07 by the Rent tribunal, Sri ganganagar (in short 'the tribunal' hereinafter)have been allowed and the aforesaid orders impugned in the writ petitions passed by the learned tribunal taking the reply to the petitions filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant on record have been set aside.

(2.) SINCE the questions involved in all these three appeals arising from the aforesaid orders passed by the learned single judge are identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. For the convenience, the facts of D, B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1132/ 08 arising from writ petition No. 3946/08 are being taken into consideration as a lead case.

(3.) THE relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondent-landlord, preferred a petition against the appellant-tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act of 2001" hereinafter)for his eviction from the suit premises, on the ground of reasonable bona fide necessity. A notice issued by the tribunal was served upon the appellant on 17-11-07. In pursuance thereof, the counsel for the appellant-tenant appeared before the learned tribunal on the next date fixed in the matter i. e. 17-12-07 and filed the power on his behalf. From the perusal of order sheets placed on record as annexure 5, it is revealed that on the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 27-2-08. A reply to the petition was filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant before the learned tribunal on 27-2-08 and the matter was adjourned to 18-3-08 for evidence. On the next date of hearing, an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of Civil procedure Code, 1908 (in short "cpc" hereinafter)seeking leave to file rejoinder was preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The rejoinder was also filed along with the said application. At the same time, by way of yet another application, the respondent no. 1 objected the reply to the petition filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant after expiry of period of 45 days being taken on record.