// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2682/2008 Naresh Singhal S/o Shri Hazari Lal Versus Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6842/2008 Naresh Singhal S/o Shri Hazari Lal Versus Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Others Date of Order ::: 22.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.P. Garg,Counsel for petitioner Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 #### By the Court:- 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. 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 // 2 // 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 // 3 // 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. // 4 // I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. The learned Rent Tribunal, while rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC has specifically mentioned that the amendment sought in the issues is covered by Issue No.7. The matter is pending for the last four years. The case is fixed for final hearing. Section 15 of the Act of 2001 specifically provides for disposal of the application in a summary manner within a period of 240 days. The evidence has already been led on the issues which is sought to be framed. The learned Tribunal, while rejecting the application for reduction of rent, has also observed that reply to the application in the present case was filed by the petitioner way back on 5th March, 2004 and the evidence of both the parties have also been closed. The case is fixed for final arguments. The application for amendment in the reply was filed in this respect and the said application for amendment in the reply was rejected by the Tribunal on 16th February, 2006. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed // 5 // S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2425/2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 28th March, 2006. Thereafter the petitioner preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.321/2006, which was also dismissed vide order dated 4th July, 2006. After considering the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in both the orders, I find that both the orders are perfectly justified and do not call for any interference by this Court. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and I am satisfied that both the petitions have been preferred only to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in any of the writ petitions and both the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//