MURARI LAL Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.08.2008 whereby the Rent Tribunal, Alwar has dismissed the petitioner's application for filing affidavits of three persons.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.1983, the petitioner had bought a shop, the shop-in-dispute in this case, through a registered sale-deed from one Mr. Labh Chand. The said shop was rented out to one Mr. Phool Chand. Along with Mr. Phool Chand, Mr. Narendra Kumar, respondent No.2, also carried out the business in the said shop. Mr. Phool Chand expired on 09.02.2001; after his death, Mr. Narendra continuing to be the tenant in the shop. Since the petitioner himself was engaged in the business of manufacturing of copies, in the name and style of M/s. Goyal Copy Manufacturers, he required the said shop for running his business. Therefore, on 08.02.2004, the petitioner filed a suit for eviction under Sec. 9 and 15 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 on the ground of personal necessity. Mr. Narendra kumar filed a written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. On 15.07.2006, the learned Tribunal framed the issues. On 01.09.2006, the petitioner filed an application for seeking permission to submit affidavits of three persons whose affidavits could not be submitted inadvertently at the time of filing of the plaint. Mr. Kumar vehemently opposed the said application. Vide order dated 26.08.2008, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case through cogent evidence. This burden of proof has been placed not only by a statute such as the Evidence Act, but is also the right of a plaintiff under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to plead and to prove his case. For, the right to a fair trial is an essential part of the concept of "life and personal liberty" enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, Sec. 15 of the Act is pari materia with Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. In a catena of cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the time limit given for filing the reply or filing the affidavit is not mandatory, but is merely directory in nature. Therefore, right to file affidavit cannot be denied on the hyper-technicality of delay. Lastly, justice should not only be done, but it should appear to be done. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal & Anr., 2009(2) RLW 1547 (Raj.) (DB) , and Ganesh Kumar Vs. Rent Tribunal, Alwar & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2408/06 decided by this Court on 04.07.2006 .