MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Rishabh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised officer Mr. Satish Mathur challenging three orders, namely-order dated 22.09.2016(Annexure-5), 21.10.2016(Annexure-7) and order dated 04.11.2016(Annexure-9) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the Rent Tribunal') in the eviction petition filed by the respondents-landlords.
(2.) First order, which is assailed, is dated 22.09.2016, by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the said order, argued that though the petitioner, who actually was the tenant, was not impleaded as party to the eviction proceedings. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 14589/2015. This Court with the consent of the parties passed the order dated 11.04.2016 deciding the aforesaid writ petition with certain directions and also directed impleadment of the petitioner as the non-applicant before the Rent Tribunal in the eviction petition. Reference in specific made to para 5 of the aforesaid judgment to argue that therein it has been mentioned that since the eviction petition is pending since 2012 and the ground agitated inter alia is bond fide and reasonable necessity of the respondent-applicant-landlord. It was therefore directed that the eviction petition be disposed off within a period of six moths of the filing of the reply to the eviction petition. Learned counsel submitted that taking advantage of the observation made by this Court in para 3 of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents-landlords got the eviction petition amended. Therein, the respondents-landlords gave up the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity and has now confined the eviction petition to the ground of notice for eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal could not have allowed the eviction petition to proceed on any other ground, except on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity, as doing so would be contrary to the direction issued by this Court vide aforesaid judgment dated 11.04.2016.
(3.) In assailing order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 12 CPC was rejected, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in that application contended that the respondents in para 2 of the their rejoinder stated that no meeting took place after 2006 and the documents and correspondence between the parties may be ordered to be produced on record. It was further stated in the application that the respondents in para 6 of the rejoinder stated that they had started Women Hostel and Paying Guest for women and they may be directed to produce its registration certificate and police report as also copy of the returns and receipts of the tax etc. deposited. It was further prayed that the respondents claimed to be legal heir of Ramesh Chand Soni, therefore, they may be directed to produce copy of his death certificate. They have also claimed in para 4 of the rejoinder that they incurred expenses for maintenance of the premise and they should be required to prove the same by producing the receipt of the expenses thereof. The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2016 dismissed the said application. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal was wholly unjustified in rejecting the said application on the premise that the documents sought to be summoned were not relevant or necessary for effective decision of the eviction petition and further that the application, which is not support by affidavit has been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings. He has argued that right of the petitioner to agitate the aforesaid points has wrongly been scuttled by the Rent Tribunal only because this Court in the aforesaid judgment directed to decide the eviction petition up to 28.11.2016 and the Rent Tribunal ought to have decided the application of the petitioner on merits rather rushing through the proceedings.;