Assailing the order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent agreement dated 01.01.2014 does not reveal that he is tenant in Flat No. 606. He submits that it simply reads “TWO ROOM SET on 6th FLOOR, OUT of SOCIETY” in the layout plan of Vaidant Height, Nand Puri-B, Near Mahima Group Apartment, Guru Circle, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
5. It is trite that for consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, averments in the petition/plaint only are relevant and defence of the respondent/defendant is not to be seen at this stage.
6. Flat No. 606 is specifically mentioned in the eviction application under tenancy of the petitioner which, as per the order impugned dated 19.02.2020, has not been disputed even by the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the effect of the absence of flat number in the rent agreement is to be examined by the learned Rent Tribunal, in case any such objection exists in the reply filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any averment or omission in the eviction application which may invite application of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Even otherwise also, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not reveal any reason for filing it at such belated stage when the case was fixed for the final arguments. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the application was filed with malafide intention to delay the disposal of the eviction application. The order dated 19.02.2020 does not suffer any illegality or perversity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the High Court of Rajasthan
(Before Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.)
Anil Joshi Vs Beejal Chopra
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4602/2020
Decided on August 24, 2020
Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1256
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.:— This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.02.2020 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal, Mahanagar, Jaipur, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-applicant filed an Original Application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 stating therein that the petitioner is tenant in Flat No. 606, Vaidant Height, Nand Puri-B, near Mahima Group Apartment, Guru Circle, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur under the rent agreement dated 01.01.2014. Alleging default in the payment of rent, his eviction was sought by the respondent. After closure of the evidence of the parties, the case was fixed for final arguments on 23.10.2019. On 23.10.2019, the petitioner-tenant filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned herein.
3. Assailing the order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent agreement dated 01.01.2014 does not reveal that he is tenant in Flat No. 606. He submits that it simply reads “TWO ROOM SET on 6th FLOOR, OUT of SOCIETY” in the layout plan of Vaidant Height, Nand Puri-B, Near Mahima Group Apartment, Guru Circle, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. He further submits that while dismissing the application, the learned Rent Tribunal did not appreciate signatures of the first party, second party and witness no. 2 were obtained later on as the signatures follow mark ‘X’. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 19.02.2020 deserves to be set aside.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. It is trite that for consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, averments in the petition/plaint only are relevant and defence of the respondent/defendant is not to be seen at this stage.
6. Flat No. 606 is specifically mentioned in the eviction application under tenancy of the petitioner which, as per the order impugned dated 19.02.2020, has not been disputed even by the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the effect of the absence of flat number in the rent agreement is to be examined by the learned Rent Tribunal, in case any such objection exists in the reply filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any averment or omission in the eviction application which may invite application of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Even otherwise also, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not reveal any reason for filing it at such belated stage when the case was fixed for the final arguments. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the application was filed with malafide intention to delay the disposal of the eviction application. The order dated 19.02.2020 does not suffer any illegality or perversity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment