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



Rajendra Kumar Sharma v/s Radheyshyam & Another

    Civil Writ Petition No. 11357 of 2011

    Decided On, 02 September 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

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

    For the Petitioner: Krishan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Buddhi Prakash Sharma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner/tenant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2011(Annexure-3) passed by Rent Tribunal, Dausa, whereby his application under Section 21 of The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') read with Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC to summon a document from the custody of applicant/respondent No.1, has been dismissed.

3. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and documents enclosed with the writ petition, it appears that respondent No.1/applicant filed an appli

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

cation for eviction under Section 9 of The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against non-applicant/petitioner on or before 24.01.2007. Petitioner filed an application dated 29.07.2011 before the Rent Tribunal, Dausa, contending therein that applicant has filed the present suit for eviction on the ground of default and has pleaded that a sum of Rs.23,800/- is due against non-applicant towards arrears of rent, which has not been paid, whereas a sum of Rs.25,000/- is lying in deposit as security with the applicant and there is reference of this amount of security in the 'Bahi' of applicant. It was also mentioned that security amount was paid in presence of two witnesses, namely Nand Lal and Banwari Lal, since original document is in custody of applicant, therefore, applicant may be directed to produce the same in the Court. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 30.07.2011, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved with the said order, non-applicant/tenant has preferred this writ petition.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the document in question was in custody of the applicant, therefore, application filed by petitioner should have been allowed and the Rent Tribunal committed an illegality in rejecting his application, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the present application for eviction was filed in January, 2007. On earlier occasion, the present petitioner filed an application seeking permission to produce some documents on record, which was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal on 13.05.2009 and petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13281/2009, which was decided on 02.02.2011 and this Court directed to decide the application for eviction within a period of six months. The said period of six months was going to expire on 02.08.2011 and before the said date, petitioner filed the present application on 29.07.2011 only to delay the eviction proceedings, therefore, the present application cannot be said to be bonafide and has rightly been rejected by the Rent Tribunal.

6. He further submitted that petitioner never made any payment of security amount, the said fact was specifically denied in the rejoinder, applicant was cross-examined on this question and applicant denied in his cross-examination also in this regard. He submitted that amount of security was not paid and there was no writing in this regard in the 'Bahi', therefore, no question arises for production of the said document. All these facts have been taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the application of petitioner, He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal and other documents, annexed with the writ petition and also a photo-stat copy of order dated 02.02.2011 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13281/2009, referred during the course of arguments, wherein this Court directed the Rent Tribunal to decide the application for eviction under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 within a period of six months.

8. Rent Tribunal in its order, which is impugned in this writ petition, has specifically observed that in para 9 of the rejoinder, applicant has specifically denied that no such amount of Rs.25,000/- was given to him as advance, therefore, there is no question of any writing in this regard in any document. The applicant was also cross-examined on this point by the Counsel for the non-applicant and applicant specifically denied in this regard. Cross examination of applicant and non-applicant has been completed in the case and case is fixed for final arguments.

9. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application appear to be absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for by this Court.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297), held the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38), held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, has held as under:-

"The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character."

13. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.
O R