Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors.

Decided On : Apr-22-2009

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 21(3',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 21 of the Act of',
			(int) 2 => 'Order VI Rule',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 21 of the Act of 2001',
			(int) 4 => 'the Code of Civil Procedure',
			(int) 5 => 'Order VI Rule 17',
			(int) 6 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
			(int) 7 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 21(3'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Maheshwari',
			(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 2 => 'Mohd',
			(int) 3 => 'Abdul Khalil',
			(int) 4 => 'DNJ',
			(int) 5 => 'Counsel'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2529/2009',
			(int) 1 => '2529/2009',
			(int) 2 => '18.02.2009',
			(int) 3 => '2001',
			(int) 4 => '2001',
			(int) 5 => '2001',
			(int) 6 => '7.5.2007',
			(int) 7 => '18.2.2009',
			(int) 8 => '2001',
			(int) 9 => '2411',
			(int) 10 => '2001'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 3 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'the Rajasthan Rent Control Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Rafique',
			(int) 13 => 'CPC',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 17 => 'Order VI Rule',
			(int) 18 => 'CPC',
			(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 20 => 'Rafique',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 28 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jodhpur',
			(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 2 => '01.02.2007',
			(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 4 => 'Mohd',
			(int) 5 => 'C.P.C.'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mandore Road, Jodhpur'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '01.02.2007',
			(int) 1 => '300/-.5',
			(int) 2 => '2009(1',
			(int) 3 => '17',
			(int) 4 => '3',
			(int) 5 => '17'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '769014',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Narpat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-04-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Dinesh Maheshwari, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dinesh Maheshwari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these petitions, CWP No. 2529/2009 and CWP No. 2529/2009, having been filed against similar nature orders dated 18.02.2009 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur involving similar and akin issues have been heard together. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions; and both the petitions, being similar in nature, are taken up for disposal by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed before the Rent Tribunal separate petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants-respondents, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The tenants have filed their reply contesting the petitions; and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. After such filing of the pleadings, the tenants moved respective applications seeking to file supplementary replies essentially with the submissions that they had come to know about certain other premises at Mandore Road, Jodhpur being available with the petitioner-landlord. Such applications were rejected by the learned Tribunal by similar nature orders dated 01.02.2007 essentially on the consideration that there was no provision in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') whereunder the non-applicant could submit any additional reply after filing of the rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tenants, however, proceeded to move further applications, this time with reference to Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 on 7.5.2007, seeking to amend the pleadings as taken in the reply so as to take particularly the pleadings about such availability of alternative premises with the petitioner-landlord. The applications so moved have been allowed by the similar nature orders dated 18.2.2009 that are sought to be questioned by way of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Tribunal has, of course, noticed the fact about the order dated 01.02.2007 but observed that the suggestion of the tenant about other shops having come in possession of the landlord cannot be decided without evidence of the parties; and the evidence of the applicant landlord was yet to be recorded. The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder; and that allowing of the application would be conducive to the just decision of the matter. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the respective applications on costs of Rs. 300/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and so also to the previous orders dated 01.02.2007 and submitted that once the proposition of taking additional pleadings had been refused, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to allow the same pleadings, this time suggested by way of so-called amendment of the reply. Such a procedure, according to the learned Counsel, amounts to reviewing of the order dated 01.02.2007 without any justification. Learned Counsel further referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors. 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 2411 to submit that moving of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not envisaged in the scheme of the procedure as laid down under the Act of 2001 for dealing with the application for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The submissions as made by learned Counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. So far procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal are concerned, Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 makes it absolutely clear that the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but is to be guided by the principles of natural justice; and has the powers to regulate its own procedure. Even if Order VI Rule 17 CPC in its name is not applied to the proceedings under the Act of 2001, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no power to allow amendment of the pleadings, if found necessary in the interest of justice. The decision as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Rafique's case (supra), instead of supporting the contentions as urged, rather goes against the petitioner. In the said case, apart from the fact that the application under Order VI Rule 17 was rejected with the observations that the matter could be adjudicated at the final stage, relevant it is that in relation to the prayer for amendment, this Court said thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is not maintainable but the Rent Tribunal can adopt any procedure as per principles of natural justice. In this case, although the application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 but for the purpose of amendment the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted on the basis of principles of natural justice. The facts of this case and the concurrent finding given by Court below does not require any interference by this Court. However, the petitioner can raise this ground at the time of final adjudication of the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is clear that the prayer for amendment if considered necessary for and conducive to the ends of justice, the same could definitely be allowed by the Rent Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the present cases, it is noticed that the tenants are seeking to suggest that there are certain other premises available with the landlord to contest the ground of eviction on reasonable and bona fide requirement. Such facts were earlier sought to be placed on record by the tenants by way of supplementary replies. The Tribunal proceeded to reject such a prayer while accepting the contention of the landlord that there was no provision in the Act of 2001 for filing of a supplementary reply. The Tribunal, however, while passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 has rightly taken into comprehension the effect and purport of Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 and has passed the order that is conducive to the just decision of the case on merits. The Tribunal has even taken care to observe that the petitioner-landlord could file amended rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The orders as passed by the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor lead to any injustice. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petitions stand rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2009(4)Raj3623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Moola Ram and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '769014'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 21(3',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 21 of the Act of',
		(int) 2 => 'Order VI Rule',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 21 of the Act of 2001',
		(int) 4 => 'the Code of Civil Procedure',
		(int) 5 => 'Order VI Rule 17',
		(int) 6 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
		(int) 7 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 21(3'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Maheshwari',
		(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 2 => 'Mohd',
		(int) 3 => 'Abdul Khalil',
		(int) 4 => 'DNJ',
		(int) 5 => 'Counsel'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2529/2009',
		(int) 1 => '2529/2009',
		(int) 2 => '18.02.2009',
		(int) 3 => '2001',
		(int) 4 => '2001',
		(int) 5 => '2001',
		(int) 6 => '7.5.2007',
		(int) 7 => '18.2.2009',
		(int) 8 => '2001',
		(int) 9 => '2411',
		(int) 10 => '2001'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 3 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'the Rajasthan Rent Control Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Rafique',
		(int) 13 => 'CPC',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 17 => 'Order VI Rule',
		(int) 18 => 'CPC',
		(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 20 => 'Rafique',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 28 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jodhpur',
		(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 2 => '01.02.2007',
		(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 4 => 'Mohd',
		(int) 5 => 'C.P.C.'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mandore Road, Jodhpur'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '01.02.2007',
		(int) 1 => '300/-.5',
		(int) 2 => '2009(1',
		(int) 3 => '17',
		(int) 4 => '3',
		(int) 5 => '17'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '769014',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Narpat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-04-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Dinesh Maheshwari, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dinesh Maheshwari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these petitions, CWP No. 2529/2009 and CWP No. 2529/2009, having been filed against similar nature orders dated 18.02.2009 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur involving similar and akin issues have been heard together. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions; and both the petitions, being similar in nature, are taken up for disposal by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed before the Rent Tribunal separate petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants-respondents, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The tenants have filed their reply contesting the petitions; and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. After such filing of the pleadings, the tenants moved respective applications seeking to file supplementary replies essentially with the submissions that they had come to know about certain other premises at Mandore Road, Jodhpur being available with the petitioner-landlord. Such applications were rejected by the learned Tribunal by similar nature orders dated 01.02.2007 essentially on the consideration that there was no provision in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') whereunder the non-applicant could submit any additional reply after filing of the rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tenants, however, proceeded to move further applications, this time with reference to Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 on 7.5.2007, seeking to amend the pleadings as taken in the reply so as to take particularly the pleadings about such availability of alternative premises with the petitioner-landlord. The applications so moved have been allowed by the similar nature orders dated 18.2.2009 that are sought to be questioned by way of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Tribunal has, of course, noticed the fact about the order dated 01.02.2007 but observed that the suggestion of the tenant about other shops having come in possession of the landlord cannot be decided without evidence of the parties; and the evidence of the applicant landlord was yet to be recorded. The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder; and that allowing of the application would be conducive to the just decision of the matter. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the respective applications on costs of Rs. 300/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and so also to the previous orders dated 01.02.2007 and submitted that once the proposition of taking additional pleadings had been refused, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to allow the same pleadings, this time suggested by way of so-called amendment of the reply. Such a procedure, according to the learned Counsel, amounts to reviewing of the order dated 01.02.2007 without any justification. Learned Counsel further referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors. 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 2411 to submit that moving of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not envisaged in the scheme of the procedure as laid down under the Act of 2001 for dealing with the application for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The submissions as made by learned Counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. So far procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal are concerned, Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 makes it absolutely clear that the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but is to be guided by the principles of natural justice; and has the powers to regulate its own procedure. Even if Order VI Rule 17 CPC in its name is not applied to the proceedings under the Act of 2001, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no power to allow amendment of the pleadings, if found necessary in the interest of justice. The decision as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Rafique's case (supra), instead of supporting the contentions as urged, rather goes against the petitioner. In the said case, apart from the fact that the application under Order VI Rule 17 was rejected with the observations that the matter could be adjudicated at the final stage, relevant it is that in relation to the prayer for amendment, this Court said thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is not maintainable but the Rent Tribunal can adopt any procedure as per principles of natural justice. In this case, although the application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 but for the purpose of amendment the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted on the basis of principles of natural justice. The facts of this case and the concurrent finding given by Court below does not require any interference by this Court. However, the petitioner can raise this ground at the time of final adjudication of the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is clear that the prayer for amendment if considered necessary for and conducive to the ends of justice, the same could definitely be allowed by the Rent Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the present cases, it is noticed that the tenants are seeking to suggest that there are certain other premises available with the landlord to contest the ground of eviction on reasonable and bona fide requirement. Such facts were earlier sought to be placed on record by the tenants by way of supplementary replies. The Tribunal proceeded to reject such a prayer while accepting the contention of the landlord that there was no provision in the Act of 2001 for filing of a supplementary reply. The Tribunal, however, while passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 has rightly taken into comprehension the effect and purport of Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 and has passed the order that is conducive to the just decision of the case on merits. The Tribunal has even taken care to observe that the petitioner-landlord could file amended rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The orders as passed by the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor lead to any injustice. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petitions stand rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2009(4)Raj3623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Moola Ram and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '769014'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 21(3',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 21 of the Act of',
			(int) 2 => 'Order VI Rule',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 21 of the Act of 2001',
			(int) 4 => 'the Code of Civil Procedure',
			(int) 5 => 'Order VI Rule 17',
			(int) 6 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
			(int) 7 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 21(3'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Maheshwari',
			(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 2 => 'Mohd',
			(int) 3 => 'Abdul Khalil',
			(int) 4 => 'DNJ',
			(int) 5 => 'Counsel'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2529/2009',
			(int) 1 => '2529/2009',
			(int) 2 => '18.02.2009',
			(int) 3 => '2001',
			(int) 4 => '2001',
			(int) 5 => '2001',
			(int) 6 => '7.5.2007',
			(int) 7 => '18.2.2009',
			(int) 8 => '2001',
			(int) 9 => '2411',
			(int) 10 => '2001'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 3 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'the Rajasthan Rent Control Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Rafique',
			(int) 13 => 'CPC',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 17 => 'Order VI Rule',
			(int) 18 => 'CPC',
			(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 20 => 'Rafique',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 28 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jodhpur',
			(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 2 => '01.02.2007',
			(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 4 => 'Mohd',
			(int) 5 => 'C.P.C.'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mandore Road, Jodhpur'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '01.02.2007',
			(int) 1 => '300/-.5',
			(int) 2 => '2009(1',
			(int) 3 => '17',
			(int) 4 => '3',
			(int) 5 => '17'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '769014',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Narpat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder;',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-04-22',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Dinesh Maheshwari, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dinesh Maheshwari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these petitions, CWP No. 2529/2009 and CWP No. 2529/2009, having been filed against similar nature orders dated 18.02.2009 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur involving similar and akin issues have been heard together. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions; and both the petitions, being similar in nature, are taken up for disposal by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed before the Rent Tribunal separate petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants-respondents, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The tenants have filed their reply contesting the petitions; and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. After such filing of the pleadings, the tenants moved respective applications seeking to file supplementary replies essentially with the submissions that they had come to know about certain other premises at Mandore Road, Jodhpur being available with the petitioner-landlord. Such applications were rejected by the learned Tribunal by similar nature orders dated 01.02.2007 essentially on the consideration that there was no provision in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') whereunder the non-applicant could submit any additional reply after filing of the rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tenants, however, proceeded to move further applications, this time with reference to Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 on 7.5.2007, seeking to amend the pleadings as taken in the reply so as to take particularly the pleadings about such availability of alternative premises with the petitioner-landlord. The applications so moved have been allowed by the similar nature orders dated 18.2.2009 that are sought to be questioned by way of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Tribunal has, of course, noticed the fact about the order dated 01.02.2007 but observed that the suggestion of the tenant about other shops having come in possession of the landlord cannot be decided without evidence of the parties; and the evidence of the applicant landlord was yet to be recorded. The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder; and that allowing of the application would be conducive to the just decision of the matter. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the respective applications on costs of Rs. 300/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and so also to the previous orders dated 01.02.2007 and submitted that once the proposition of taking additional pleadings had been refused, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to allow the same pleadings, this time suggested by way of so-called amendment of the reply. Such a procedure, according to the learned Counsel, amounts to reviewing of the order dated 01.02.2007 without any justification. Learned Counsel further referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors. 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 2411 to submit that moving of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not envisaged in the scheme of the procedure as laid down under the Act of 2001 for dealing with the application for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The submissions as made by learned Counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. So far procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal are concerned, Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 makes it absolutely clear that the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but is to be guided by the principles of natural justice; and has the powers to regulate its own procedure. Even if Order VI Rule 17 CPC in its name is not applied to the proceedings under the Act of 2001, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no power to allow amendment of the pleadings, if found necessary in the interest of justice. The decision as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Rafique's case (supra), instead of supporting the contentions as urged, rather goes against the petitioner. In the said case, apart from the fact that the application under Order VI Rule 17 was rejected with the observations that the matter could be adjudicated at the final stage, relevant it is that in relation to the prayer for amendment, this Court said thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is not maintainable but the Rent Tribunal can adopt any procedure as per principles of natural justice. In this case, although the application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 but for the purpose of amendment the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted on the basis of principles of natural justice. The facts of this case and the concurrent finding given by Court below does not require any interference by this Court. However, the petitioner can raise this ground at the time of final adjudication of the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is clear that the prayer for amendment if considered necessary for and conducive to the ends of justice, the same could definitely be allowed by the Rent Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the present cases, it is noticed that the tenants are seeking to suggest that there are certain other premises available with the landlord to contest the ground of eviction on reasonable and bona fide requirement. Such facts were earlier sought to be placed on record by the tenants by way of supplementary replies. The Tribunal proceeded to reject such a prayer while accepting the contention of the landlord that there was no provision in the Act of 2001 for filing of a supplementary reply. The Tribunal, however, while passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 has rightly taken into comprehension the effect and purport of Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 and has passed the order that is conducive to the just decision of the case on merits. The Tribunal has even taken care to observe that the petitioner-landlord could file amended rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The orders as passed by the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor lead to any injustice. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petitions stand rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2009(4)Raj3623',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Moola Ram and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '769014'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 21(3',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 21 of the Act of',
		(int) 2 => 'Order VI Rule',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 21 of the Act of 2001',
		(int) 4 => 'the Code of Civil Procedure',
		(int) 5 => 'Order VI Rule 17',
		(int) 6 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
		(int) 7 => 'Order 6 Rule 17',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 21(3'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Maheshwari',
		(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 2 => 'Mohd',
		(int) 3 => 'Abdul Khalil',
		(int) 4 => 'DNJ',
		(int) 5 => 'Counsel'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2529/2009',
		(int) 1 => '2529/2009',
		(int) 2 => '18.02.2009',
		(int) 3 => '2001',
		(int) 4 => '2001',
		(int) 5 => '2001',
		(int) 6 => '7.5.2007',
		(int) 7 => '18.2.2009',
		(int) 8 => '2001',
		(int) 9 => '2411',
		(int) 10 => '2001'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 3 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'the Rajasthan Rent Control Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Rafique',
		(int) 13 => 'CPC',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 17 => 'Order VI Rule',
		(int) 18 => 'CPC',
		(int) 19 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 20 => 'Rafique',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'the Rent Tribunal',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 28 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jodhpur',
		(int) 1 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 2 => '01.02.2007',
		(int) 3 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 4 => 'Mohd',
		(int) 5 => 'C.P.C.'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mandore Road, Jodhpur'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '01.02.2007',
		(int) 1 => '300/-.5',
		(int) 2 => '2009(1',
		(int) 3 => '17',
		(int) 4 => '3',
		(int) 5 => '17'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '769014',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Narpat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Narpat Singh Vs. Moola Ram and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-04-22',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Dinesh Maheshwari, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Dinesh Maheshwari, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these petitions, CWP No. 2529/2009 and CWP No. 2529/2009, having been filed against similar nature orders dated 18.02.2009 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur involving similar and akin issues have been heard together. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions; and both the petitions, being similar in nature, are taken up for disposal by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed before the Rent Tribunal separate petitions seeking eviction of the respective tenants-respondents, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The tenants have filed their reply contesting the petitions; and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder. After such filing of the pleadings, the tenants moved respective applications seeking to file supplementary replies essentially with the submissions that they had come to know about certain other premises at Mandore Road, Jodhpur being available with the petitioner-landlord. Such applications were rejected by the learned Tribunal by similar nature orders dated 01.02.2007 essentially on the consideration that there was no provision in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') whereunder the non-applicant could submit any additional reply after filing of the rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The tenants, however, proceeded to move further applications, this time with reference to Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 on 7.5.2007, seeking to amend the pleadings as taken in the reply so as to take particularly the pleadings about such availability of alternative premises with the petitioner-landlord. The applications so moved have been allowed by the similar nature orders dated 18.2.2009 that are sought to be questioned by way of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Tribunal has, of course, noticed the fact about the order dated 01.02.2007 but observed that the suggestion of the tenant about other shops having come in possession of the landlord cannot be decided without evidence of the parties; and the evidence of the applicant landlord was yet to be recorded. The Tribunal has also observed that in the event of the tenant filing the amended reply, the landlord could very well file an amended rejoinder; and that allowing of the application would be conducive to the just decision of the matter. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the respective applications on costs of Rs. 300/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and so also to the previous orders dated 01.02.2007 and submitted that once the proposition of taking additional pleadings had been refused, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to allow the same pleadings, this time suggested by way of so-called amendment of the reply. Such a procedure, according to the learned Counsel, amounts to reviewing of the order dated 01.02.2007 without any justification. Learned Counsel further referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Rafique v. Abdul Khalil and Ors. 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 2411 to submit that moving of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not envisaged in the scheme of the procedure as laid down under the Act of 2001 for dealing with the application for eviction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The submissions as made by learned Counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. So far procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal are concerned, Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 makes it absolutely clear that the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but is to be guided by the principles of natural justice; and has the powers to regulate its own procedure. Even if Order VI Rule 17 CPC in its name is not applied to the proceedings under the Act of 2001, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no power to allow amendment of the pleadings, if found necessary in the interest of justice. The decision as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Rafique's case (supra), instead of supporting the contentions as urged, rather goes against the petitioner. In the said case, apart from the fact that the application under Order VI Rule 17 was rejected with the observations that the matter could be adjudicated at the final stage, relevant it is that in relation to the prayer for amendment, this Court said thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is not maintainable but the Rent Tribunal can adopt any procedure as per principles of natural justice. In this case, although the application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 but for the purpose of amendment the prayer of the petitioner can be accepted on the basis of principles of natural justice. The facts of this case and the concurrent finding given by Court below does not require any interference by this Court. However, the petitioner can raise this ground at the time of final adjudication of the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is clear that the prayer for amendment if considered necessary for and conducive to the ends of justice, the same could definitely be allowed by the Rent Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the present cases, it is noticed that the tenants are seeking to suggest that there are certain other premises available with the landlord to contest the ground of eviction on reasonable and bona fide requirement. Such facts were earlier sought to be placed on record by the tenants by way of supplementary replies. The Tribunal proceeded to reject such a prayer while accepting the contention of the landlord that there was no provision in the Act of 2001 for filing of a supplementary reply. The Tribunal, however, while passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 has rightly taken into comprehension the effect and purport of Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 and has passed the order that is conducive to the just decision of the case on merits. The Tribunal has even taken care to observe that the petitioner-landlord could file amended rejoinder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The orders as passed by the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor lead to any injustice. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The writ petitions stand rejected.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2009(4)Raj3623',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Moola Ram and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '769014'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 21(3, Section 21 of the Act of, Order VI Rule, Section 21 of the Act of 2001, the Code of Civil Procedure, Order VI Rule 17, Order 6 Rule 17, Order 6 Rule 17, Section 21(3

PERSON: Maheshwari, Counsel, Mohd, Abdul Khalil, DNJ, Counsel

NORP: J.1

DATE: 2529/2009, 2529/2009, 18.02.2009, 2001, 2001, 2001, 7.5.2007, 18.2.2009, 2001, 2411, 2001

ORG: the Rent Tribunal, Court, Rent Tribunal, inter alia, Tribunal, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Learned Counsel, Court, Rafique, CPC, Court, the Rent Tribunal, Tribunal, Order VI Rule, CPC, Tribunal, Rafique, Court, the Rent Tribunal, Court, Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal

GPE: Jodhpur, Counsel, 01.02.2007, Counsel, Mohd, C.P.C.

FAC: Mandore Road, Jodhpur

CARDINAL: 01.02.2007, 300/-.5, 2009(1, 17, 3, 17