Sangeet Lodha, J.@mdashThis petition is directed against order dt. 17.12.11 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 21/06, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short ''the Act of 2001''), seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents and to take additional affidavits and documents on record, stands rejected. The respondents-landlord have filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenant from the rented premises on the grounds of reasonable & bona fide requirement and requirement of the premises to carry out the building work in terms of provisions of Section 9(i) & (m) of the Act of 2001 respectively.
2. The application is being contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto. The petitioners have taken the stand in their reply that the walls and the roof of the disputed property have not been damaged and the premises is safe for human habitation. In para No. 9 of the reply, the petitioners denied the allegation that on account of the fire, the premises has been completely damaged. It is stated that only certain stone slabs cracked, which fell on the roof of the rented premises and damaged the kitchen and (sic) in cracks in the roof made of stone slabs. Precisely, according to the petitioners, the premises has not been substantially damaged so as to warrant reconstruction after dismantling the existing building.
3. The respondents filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an application under Sec. 21 & 15 of the Act of 2001 read with Order VIII Rule 9, CPC objecting the additional pleadings in para No. 9 of the rejoinder so also the document (Ex. 17) and affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta being taken on record. It was prayed that para No. 9 of the rejoinder may be ordered to be deleted and the Ex. 17 alongwith photographs and the affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta may be struck off from the record and be kept in the "D" part of the file.
4. After consideration of the rival submissions, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that by way of rejoinder the respondents have only controverted the averments made in the reply and it cannot be said that the new facts are pleaded by them. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioners/tenants was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dt. 25.10.07. Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition being No. 370/08 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court vide order dt. 9.9.10 observing that the averments made in para No. 9 of the rejoinder only explain the alleged substantial damage to the property and in no manner it can be said that by incorporating the facts as contained in para No. 9 of the rejoinder, the respondents have attempted to introduce altogether a new case in the garb of rejoinder to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioners. The Court observed that on rejoinder being taken on record, the applicant can always be permitted to lead oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the averments made therein. However, the Court specifically observed that if according to the petitioners therein any new pleas and facts are incorporated in the rejoinder which need to be controverted then they can always seek leave of the Rent Tribunal to file a counter thereto.
5. After disposal of the writ petition by this Court as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred an application seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder as also to produce evidence in rebuttal. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that to show that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation, the respondents had already filed the reports of Shri Mahesh Agarwal and Shri Shivdutt Bissa alongwith their original application. However, while filing the rejoinder, the respondents have filed reports of the experts Shri B.C. Poonimia and Shri N.S. Mehta and therefore, if the petitioners are not permitted to file counter to the rejoinder and to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the respondents while filing the rejoinder, a great prejudice will be caused to them inasmuch as, the additional evidence brought on record on behalf of the respondents shall go unrebutted. Learned counsel submitted that while deciding the earlier writ petition, it was specifically observed by this Court that if any new facts are pleaded by the respondents herein in the rejoinder, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek permission of the Rent Tribunal to file counter thereto and therefore, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Tribunal should not have refused the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners to file a counter to the rejoinder and to produce additional evidence in rebuttal. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Mustaq Ahmed & Ors. vs. Liyakat Ali & Anr., 2010(3) WLC 546 , learned counsel submitted that after filing of the rejoinder, the tenant has a right to file affidavits to rebutt the evidence produced on behalf of the landlord, inasmuch as, in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, the pleadings complete only after filing of the rejoinder. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but the proceedings before it are guided by principles of natural justice. It is submitted that if the petitioners are denied an opportunity to produce the evidence in rebuttal, it will be violative of principles of natural justice.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in proceedings before the Rent Tribunal for eviction of tenant Under the provisions of the Act of 2001, the landlord has a right to file rejoinder and if the rejoinder is permitted to be filed, the landlord cannot be prohibited from filing of affidavits and documents with the rejoinder. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the order dt. 25.10.07 in the petition earlier filed by the petitioners, this Court has categorically observed that the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents does not contain any new facts and thus, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in refusing to grant leave to the petitioners to file a counter to the rejoinder. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners cannot be permitted to file additional affidavits and documents in rebuttal to the additional affidavits and documents produced on behalf of the respondents alongwith the rejoinder inasmuch as, if it is permitted, it will be an endless process.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. The first question which comes for consideration of this Court is whether the rejoinder filed by the respondents contains new facts which need to be controverted by the petitioners by filing a counter thereto.
10. Indisputably, while deciding the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioners against the rejection of his application praying for deletion of para No. 9 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents, vide order dt. 25.10.10 this Court noticing the averments made in para No. 9 of the rejoinder, specifically observed that the same only further explain the alleged substantial damage to the property and in no manner, it can be said that by incorporating the facts contained therein, the respondents have attempted to introduce altogether a new case in the garb of rejoinder to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioners therein. However, at the same time, it was observed that if according to the petitioners the rejoinder contains new pleas and facts which need to be controverted then it will be open for them to seek leave of the Tribunal to file a counter thereto. A perusal of the contents of para No. 9 reveals that the respondents have controverted the stand taken by the petitioners in reply to the petition and further explained the damages caused to the disputed premises. Of course, while explaining the further damage, the respondents have relied upon the opinion of the experts namely, Shri B.C. Punamia and Shri Narpat Singh Mehta and in this regard the site inspection report prepared by Shri Narapat Singh Mehta has also been placed on record. In the considered opinion of this Court, whether the petitioners should be permitted to rebut the evidence brought on record by the respondents in support of the averments made in the rejoinder is a different question needs to be examined by this Court, but then, in absence of any averments in the rejoinder which could be considered to be new facts required to be controverted, the question of permitting the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder does not arise. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal refusing to grant permission to the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder does not require any interference by this Court.
11. This takes this Court to consider the question regarding the petitioners'' right to lead evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence brought on record by the respondents in support of the averments made in the rejoinder.
12. It is to be noticed that as per Sub-section (1) of Section 15, if the landlord or any person claiming possession files a petition before the Rent Tribunal, the same shall be accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, upon which landlord or person claiming possession wants to rely. Likewise, as per Sub-section (3) of Section 15, the tenant is entitled to file a reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioners. However, as per Sub-section (4) of Section 15, the petitioners in the rent petition is entitled to file rejoinder, if any, as a matter of right, but it does not envisage filing of additional affidavits and documents in support of the averments made in rejoinder. At the same time, as laid down by this Court in the matter of Anop Chand vs. Nand Kishore & Ors., 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1636 , Sub-section (4) of Section 15, contains no prohibition in filing of affidavits and documents with rejoinder. The Court further observed that when the Rent Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and has wide powers to regulate its procedure and to call any witness as per Section 21, it cannot be said that the Rent Tribunal cannot permit filing of additional affidavits and documents after filing of the petition or reply as the case may be.
13. In
"11. ...........
A bare perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act 2001 goes to show that the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but, they are bound to adopt the procedure in conformity with the principle of natural justice. It is to be noticed that such provision requiring observance of principle of natural justice by the judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities are generally not found incorporated in statutes specifically. In my considered opinion, while providing that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by procedure laid down by Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the legislature has consciously and purposely incorporated the said provision that proceeding before the Tribunal shall be guided by the principle of natural justice obviously, for the reason that observance thereof is considered to be assurance of justice and fairness. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that defence of a party to the proceedings before all Courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities must always be fairly heard...................."
(emphasis added)
14. In Mustaq Ahmed''s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court while recognising the right of landlord to file affidavits of witnesses and documents in support of the averments made in the rejoinder held:
"13. In the scheme as discussed above, once it has been held that the landlord has right to file the affidavits after pleadings are complete upto the stage of rejoinder, then, the tenant can file his evidence only after knowing the evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the tenant thereafter gets right to file the affidavits to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff and to strengthen his case further. The petitioner shall have a right to file additional affidavit without any permission of the Court because of his turn for filing evidence comes after the evidence of the plaintiff.
14. The procedure as described above doesn''t mean that it will delay the litigation and it is the duty of the Tribunal to regulate the proceedings and even if there is some delay, then also there cannot be compromise with the principles of natural justice in the civil proceedings in any manner. The right of the parties to submit the evidence is their inherent right in the litigation which cannot be compromised and without compromising that, the Tribunal may proceed to decide the matters in accordance with law only but in the name of saving time by not passing the orders of nature like which has been passed in this case, which is in clear violation of law as the order is non-speaking order."
15. Thus, the question with regard to tenant''s right to file affidavits in rebuttal to the evidence led by the landlord in support of the averments made in the rejoinder is no more res integra.
16. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that in support of the averments made the respondents have relied upon opinion of the experts namely Mr. B.C. Punamia and Mr. Narpat Singh Mehta and have also filed additional affidavits and documents in support thereof, therefore, in conformity with the principles of natural justice so as to extend fair opportunity to the petitioners to defend the case set out against them, they deserve to be extended an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence sought to be produced by the respondents.
17. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal refusing the leave sought for by the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But then, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal not permitting the petitioners to file additional affidavits and documents in rebuttal to the additional evidence brought on the record by the respondents in support of the averments made in the rejoinder is found to be contrary to law and erroneous. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal refusing the leave sought for by the petitioners for filing the counter to the rejoinder is maintained. However, the order impugned to the extent of refusal to permit the petitioners to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence brought on record by the respondents by way of additional affidavits and documents is set aside. The petitioners shall be permitted to file additional affidavits and/or documents in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the respondents in support of the averments made in the rejoinder. The order passed by the Rent Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
