Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shri Rajesh Gehlot S/O Shri Omprakash ... vs Shri Goodwin Charlie S/O Shri Charlie on 4 February, 2019
Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 20666/2018
Shri Rajesh Gehlot S/o Shri Omprakash Gehlot, By Caste Mali
R/o Shyamgunj Colony, Mill Gate Beawar, Dist. Ajmer
(Rajasthan). Office Address Kamdhenu Electronix, Church Road,
Beawar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Goodwin Charlie S/o Shri Charlie, Aged Major, By Caste
Christian, R/o Church Compound, Beawar, Dist. Ajmer
(Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanish Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 04/02/2019 An application instituted by the petitioner-tenant for framing of an additional issue has been declined by the Court below vide order dated 2nd August, 2018; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner insistently contended that issue number 2 framed, which is stated to be inclusive of the additional issue prayed for, as observed by the Court below; is absolutely an erroneous approach.
According to learned counsel though the relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed, but, once the respondent- landlord has stated the rent agreement dated 20 th December, (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 12:07:54 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-20666/2018] 2004, to be a forged and fabricated document; an issue was required to be framed for effective conclusion of the controversy.
Referring to Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, learned counsel contended that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal are not bound by the procedure of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and are to be guided by principles of natural justice subject to provisions of Act of 2001, and rules made thereunder and shall also have powers to regulate their own procedure. Further, for the purpose of discharge of functions under the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal has a power of issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; hence, the rent agreement which is stated to be a forged document can be sent for examination to the appropriate authority for as regards the stand of the respondent-landlord, it is a forged document.
Per contra; counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order made by the Court below contended that the Court below committed no illegality much less material illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, issues were framed on 16th January, 2018, as proposed by the parties. Moreover, a glance of issue number 2 as proposed by petitioner-tenant and framed would reflect that it in fact includes the additional issue for which the application was instituted that has been declined.
Heard and considered.
Indisputably, with reference to rent agreement being a forged document, a Crime No. 43/2007, was lodged with the jurisdictional police station and photocopy of the same has also (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 12:07:54 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-20666/2018] been laid before this Court below. It is further reflected from the impugned order that it was the petitioner who also moved an application to place on record a certified copy of the said FIR and photo of CD. The application of the petitioner to take on record those documents has already been granted by the same order to which there is no grievance by the petitioner.
The Court below committed no material illegality while declining the prayer of the petitioner for framing of an additional issue for the rent agreement being forged. For the issue is already pending scrutiny in the Crime No. 43/2007.
For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the reasonings recorded by the Court below in the conspicuous factual matrix of the case at hand while declining the application; I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed. Application (IA No. 94460/2018) seeking vacation of interim order, stands closed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J Pooja/170 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 12:07:54 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)