Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ is directed against order dt. 7.4.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Rent Case No. 761/12 (224/11), whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners herein under Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001') read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents, stands rejected. The relevant facts are that the respondents -landlord filed a petition against the petitioners herein under Sec. 9(a) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, seeking eviction of the petitioners from a commercial premises, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petition is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. The respondents have filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an application seeking leave to file counter to the rejoinder stating that the rejoinder filed contains numerous new facts, which need to be controverted.
(2.) THE application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that the rejoinder filed does not contain new facts rather by way of rejoinder, only the averments made by the petitioners in the reply to the petition are controverted/explained. The Rent Tribunal observed that by way of rejoinder the respondents herein has not attempted to set out a new case and therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to file a counter thereto. That apart, the Court observed that an application preferred by the petitioners seeking leave to amend the reply for incorporating the facts sought to be incorporated by way of counter to rejoinder already stands rejected. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rent Tribunal has gravely erred in declining permission to the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the rejoinder filed goes to show that the respondents have stated numerous new facts which need to be controverted by the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in the rejoinder filed, the respondents have taken the stand that the receipts produced on behalf of the petitioners so as to show that there was a separate tenancy in respect of the underground, relate to yet another shop situated at Ummaid Chowk, which is not correct and therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the petitioners are permitted to controvert the averments made in rejoinder in respect of existence of shop at Ummaid Chowk and the absence of separate tenancy in respect of the shop in question and the underground. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioners are not permitted to file counter to the rejoinder as prayed for, their defence would be highly prejudiced.
(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the rejoinder filed, the petitioners have not set out any new facts rather, the averments made in the reply to the petition have been explained/controverted and therefore, the question of permitting the petitioners to file counter to the rejoinder, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that all the relevants aspects of the matter have been duly considered by the Rent Tribunal and the findings arrived at cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court.;