Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions arise out of one suit in between both the parties, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. One copy of this order may be placed on the record of another file.
(2.) BOTH the writ petitions are admitted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Applicant -respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application for eviction as well as arrears of rent against non -applicant -petitioner before the Rent Tribunal in the year 2004. The petitioner filed reply to the application on 5th March, 2004. During the pendency of that application, the petitioner moved two applications - one dated 16th November, 2007 for reducing the rent for the reasons mentioned in the application and another dated 4th March, 2008 under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. The application dated 16th November, 2007 was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 15th February, 2008, which is under challenge in the Writ Petition No. 2682/2008 and the order dated 9th July, 2008, dismissing the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 6842/2008. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that he specifically took an objection in Para 8 at Page No. 19 of his reply to the application, to the effect that rented property, which was taken on rent initially, was reduced subsequently in June, 2003 by putting a wall and, in these circumstances, he is unable to use the entire rented property, therefore, the rent be reduced proportionately and in view of this specific objection it was a duty of the Rent Tribunal to frame additional issue, therefore the Tribunal committed an illegality in rejecting his both applications and therefore both the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal are liable to be set -aside. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the trial court has rightly rejected both the applications filed by the petitioner. He contended that the present proceedings arise out of an application for eviction which was filed in the year 2004 under the new Rent Control Act, 2001. As per Section 15 of the Act of 2001 the application is required to be disposed of within a period of 240 days, but for one or the other reason the matter has been delayed at the instance of the non -applicant -petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner moved an application for amendment in the reply in respect of same contention and the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the said order was upheld by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court. Now the present applications have been filed for the same relief and the purpose of these applications is only to delay the eviction proceedings, therefore, both the applications are mala -fide and the same may be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Tribunal.;