Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS 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. 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.
(3.) 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.;