- (1.) THE petitioner -defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Dholpur whereby his application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC has been rejected and he has been denied the right to file reply to the rejoinder filed by the respondents -plaintiffs.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents -plaintiffs No.2 to 6 had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner -defendant before the Rent Tribunal, Dholpur on the ground of personal necessity of Munish Gupta, the respondent No.5 before this court. According to the respondents -plaintiffs although Munish Gupta was 28 years old, and had two children, but he was unemployed. The meager earning he was having, by doing private job with M/s. Triputi Traders alongwith one Pawan Kumar, could not support his family. For according to the plaintiffs, Munish Gupta was merely earning a salary of Rs.3,000/ - per month. Therefore, in order to start his own independent business in Bidi, the suit property was needed in a bonafide manner. The petitioner filed his reply and denied the facts mentioned in the petition. The petitioner specifically claimed that Munish Kumar is neither unemployed, nor is doing private job with Pawan Kumar. Instead, he is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Manish Trading Company in a shop situated at Station Road, Dholpur. Moreover, the petitioner clearly pleaded that the respondents -plaintiffs have two shops which are lying vacant which can be used by them for establishing independent business of Munish Gupta. Moreover, he also pleaded that Munish Gupta belongs to a joint Hindu family which is running a joint family business with a turnover of Rs.1 Crore per year. Thus, he denied the bonafide necessity of the suit property for the welfare of Munish Gupta. The respondents -plaintiffs filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, they not only set -up a new case and brought new facts through rejoinder, but also submitted certain documents and affidavits. Since the new facts had to be rebutted and since counter -affidavit had to be submitted, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and prayed that his reply to the rejoinder should be taken on record. However, by order dated 27.8.2013, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.
(3.) MR . Raj Kamal Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, according to Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, while demarcating the powers of the learned Tribunal, and while laying down the procedure to be followed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal has been directed to be guided by the principles of natural justice as well as to be empowered under certain sections and orders of Civil Procedure Code. According to the learned counsel, the principle of natural justice would necessary entail that before any adverse order is passed against any party, ample opportunity of hearing should be given to the said party. Such an opportunity of hearing would not only include the personal hearing of a party, but more so would include the right of the party to rebut a rejoinder and to file a counter -affidavit to the affidavits submitted by the respondents -plaintiffs in the present case. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in denying this opportunity while claiming that Order 8, Rule 9 CPC does not apply to the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Tribunal. Even if Order 8, Rule 9 CPC were inapplicable, even then the learned Tribunal was bound to follow the principles of natural justice.;