w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Lokesh Kumar Singh v/s Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Others

    Civil Writ Petition No. 10201 of 2009

    Decided On, 01 September 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I

    For the Petitioner: Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2 & R3, Hari Krishan Sharma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The matter has come for order on an application filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ad-interim ex-parte stay order dated 24.08.2009, but at the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off finally.

3. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and documents annexed with the writ petition, it appears that applicants/Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

an application for eviction before Rent Tribunal, Jaipur(for short 'the Tribunal') against non-applicant/petitioner, wherein the case was fixed for non-applicant's evidence on 10.04.2009. Since no witness was present on behalf of the non-applicant, therefore, it was ordered that a last opportunity is granted to produce all the witness on next date, failing which cross-examination of witnesses will be closed. The case was fixed for 29.05.2009. The matter was taken up on 29.05.2009. Cross-examination of D.W. 1, Lokesh Kumar Singh was completed. Non-applicant sought further time to produce his witnesses. Since his witnesses were not present, therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that reason assigned by non-applicant for not producing his witnesses is not reasonable and consequently, closed the non-applicant's evidence and fixed the case for final arguments on 28.07.2009. Thereafter, non-applicant filed an application to allow him to produce his two witnesses, i.e. D.W. 2 Puran Chand Gupta and D.W. 3 Krishan Kumar Batra for cross-examination. Said application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2009. Being aggrieved with the same, non-applicant/petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that impugned orders dated 29.05.2009 and 28.07.2009 may be set aside and he may be permitted to produce his witnesses, as named above, for cross-examination by the applicants.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 29.05.2009, he remained under this impression that he will be cross-examined by the applicant and he did not produce his remaining two witnesses for cross-examination on that day, therefore, it was a reasonable cause and the Tribunal committed an illegality in not allowing the application of the non-applicant to produce his remaining two witnesses for cross-examination, therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that number of opportunities were granted to non-applicant to produce his witnesses, the matter was listed on 10.04.2009 and on the request of learned counsel for non-applicant, a last opportunity was granted with clear understanding that in case he does not produce his witnesses, then their cross-examination will be closed, therefore, there is no illegality in passing the orders dated 29.05.2009 and 28.07.2009. In alternative, he submitted that in case the petitioner is permitted to produce his remaining two witnesses, in the interest of justice, then at least a reasonable amount of cost may be imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection in imposing a reasonable amount of cost for the said purpose.

6. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders and the documents annexed with the writ petition.

7. The matter was listed before the Tribunal on 10.04.2009 and a last opportunity was granted to non-applicant to produce his witnesses and it was also made clear that in case the witnesses do not remain present, then their cross-examination will be closed. Non-applicant's witnesses were not present on 29.05.2009, therefore, the Tribunal closed their cross-examination on that date. When an application was filed by the non-applicant to allow him to produce his two witnesses for cross-examination, then the said application was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2009, the said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

8. It is relevant to mention that while issuing show cause notice of this writ petition on 24.08.2009, this Court had stayed the further proceedings of the case pending before the Tribunal, therefore, the matter is still pending before the Tribunal.

9. Be that as it may, after considering the submissions of the parties and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet, in case the petitioner is allowed to produce his two witnesses for cross-examination by the applicant on payment of reasonable amount of cost.

10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 29.05.2009 closing the non-applicant's evidence and 28.07.2009 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jaipur are set aside. Tenant/petitioner Lokesh Kumar Singh is permitted to produce his two witnesses i.e. D.W. 2 Puran Chand Gupta and D.W. 3, Krishan Kumar Batra for cross-examination by the applicants/landlords on next date, i.e. 17.10.2011 fixed in the Tribunal and the Tribunal will allow the applicants/plaintiffs to cross-examine both the witnesses on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand), which will be paid by the non-applicant/petitioner before cross-examination of these two witnesses.

11. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the same also stands disposed off.

Petition allowed on cost of Rs.1,000.
O R