Rajeshwari Devi Vs Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & Anr
Bench: SINGLE BENCH
Acts Referenced
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
14716 of 2016
Hon'ble Bench
Sangeet Lodha
Advocates
D.D.Chitlangi
Acts Referred
- Constitution of India, Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
- Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 15, Section 9
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. This petition is directed against order dated 27.10.16 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner to obtain the report of the expert regarding the signature of the respondent herein on a receipt for Rs.2,25,000/- executed towards the security deposit given by the petitioner, has been rejected.
2. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The petitioner has taken the stand in the reply that he had given a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the respondent as premium in respect whereof a receipt was executed by the respondent in his favour. The respondent by filing a rejoinder to the reply denied the factum of premium being received as also the execution of the receipt placed on record by the petitioner. In the cross examination also, the respondent denied his signature on the receipt. The evidence of the parties stand completed and the matter is posted for final arguments. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application to obtain the report of the handwriting expert in respect of the signature of the respondent on the receipt alleged to have been executed by him against the amount of premium given. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred stating that the same has been filed so as to protract the litigation. Learned counsel submitted that matter with regard to the necessity of the report of the handwriting expert has not been examined by the Rent Tribunal and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
5. Indisputably, as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the Tribunal is under an obligation to dispose of the proceedings within the stipulated time frame. As per the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 15, the tenant is under an obligation to file reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of service of the notice. The rejoinder, if any, is required to be filed by the opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the reply. The Rent Tribunal is required to dispose of the petition within a period of 240 days from the date of service of the notice on the tenant.
6. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, a reply to the rent petition was filed by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal on 25.2.14 and a rejoinder thereto was filed by the respondent on 27.3.14, denying the receipt of Rs.2,25,000/- as premium as also the execution of the receipt as claimed by the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the respondent was cross examined on behalf of the petitioner on 24.7.16 wherein, he categorically denied his signature on the receipt placed on record. Thus, the factum of denial of signature by the respondent was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and nothing prevented him to make an appropriate application to refer the petitioner?s alleged signature on the receipt for examination by expert. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner did not take any steps in this regard for a period of about 2 years and the application was filed at the stage when the matter is posted for final hearing. In this view of the matter, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in observing that the application preferred by the petitioner is highly belated and does not appear to be bona fide.
7. Moreover, it is not necessary that in case of denial of signature on any document by party to the proceedings, on the application preferred by the opposite party, the court is under an obligation to refer the signature for opinion of the expert. Even if the signature is not admitted by the party to the proceedings, the court is not precluded to compare the signature on the documents with the admitted signature of the party available on record.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
