KARANCHAND JAIN Vs. ASHA UTTAMCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dtd. 19/12/18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for taking the additional affidavits on record, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the respondent let out a residential premises to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the premises was let out with the clear stipulation that the petitioner shall renovate the house and the expenditure incurred will be reimbursed by the respondent. It is averred that the petitioner incurred the expenditure a sum of Rs.8,13,000.00 in renovating the house. It is stated that the respondent-landlord threatened the petitioner to evict him from the premises in question and therefore, a petition (Rent Case No. 167/14), seeking injunction was preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan under Sec. 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), wherein vide order dtd. 1/7/14, the respondent was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the respondent filed a rent petition (Rent Case No. 311/14) under Sec. 9 of the Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises, on 28/11/14. The petitioner filed a reply to the rent petition taking the stand that he has incurred expenditure of Rs.8,13,000.00 in renovation of the house. It is pertinent to note that at the time of filing reply to the petition, the petitioner had made an application that to prove the averments made in the petition, the affidavits of Sanwar Mal and Shyamlal could not be filed on account of their non availability and therefore, he may be permitted to file the same at the later stage. Thereafter, the petitioner filed yet another petition (Rent Petition No. 218/15) under Sec. 23 and 24 of the Act, before the Rent Tribunal for recovery of Rs.8,13,000.00.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application for consolidation of the petition No. 218/15 and 311/14, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dtd. 8/3/18. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 5817/18 before this court. Vide order dtd. 16/5/18, a coordinate Bench of this court while setting aside the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, directed that both the petitions shall be decided together. It was further directed that the respondent-landlord shall be at liberty to cross examine the witnesses on the affidavits filed by the petitioner-tenant in petition No. 218/15. Further, the Rent Tribunal was directed to dispose of both the petitions in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date next fixed before it.