(1) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9065/2008. (Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra) DATE OF ORDER : December 8th, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. Sandeep Shah for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.05.2006, Annex.-6 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur upon the application filed by the petitioner for summoning documents from the respondents by which the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that for the purpose of eviction from the premises in question an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed by the respondents against the petitioner. Reply was filed by the petitioner who raised (2) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra certain preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application and it was pointed out in the reply that the applicant was now owner of the property and the petitioner has relied upon the fact that the sale-deed was executed on 21.06.1974 by which the shop in question was sold in favour of Smt. Chosar Devi, mother of respondent Gajendra. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal framed three issues for adjudicating the matter, out of which, issue No.2 was as to whether the applicant is owner of the property in question or not anf, for proving the said issue, the burden has been fixed upon the petitioner. In the reply filed by the petitioner, plea was taken that applicant Gajendra is not owner of the shop in question as the said property was sold vide sale-deed dated 21.06.1974 in favour of Smt. Chosar Devi by which half of the portion of the property of Dhool Chand was sold in favour of Smt. Chosar Devi and other half was sold in favour of respondent Gajendra and the shop in which the petitioner is tenant is belonging to Smt. Chosar Devi after the execution of the said sale-deed. In the reply, it is specifically stated that the shop in question is not belonging to the applicant, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. (3) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra During the proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. for summoning the sale-deed dated 21.06.1974 from the respondent or Smt. Chosar Devi as the same is very much relevant to prove the issue. But, the said application was rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, first of all, argued that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal is cryptic order passed without considering the entire facts of the case, therefore, the same may be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it while passing the impugned order and the learned Tribunal has acted under serious misconception of law with regard to the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. while rejecting the application; but, in fact, bare perusal of Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. clearly reveals that during the pendency of the suit the Court can pass an order for production of documents against any party in whose possession or power the s;aid document is lying, if the Court thinks it proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention towards the facts of the case, submitted that for the purpose of proving issue No.2 the said document is necessary and it is well (4) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra within the possession of the respondent-applicant or his mother, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have passed order for summoning the document for proper adjudication and provided opportunity to the petitioner to prove issue No.2 in respect of which the burden was shifted upon the petitioner; but, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality which is contrary to the provisions of law. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned Tribunal is not only cryptic but it is contrary to the material facts available on record because the shop in question is not belonging to the respondent- applicant who has filed the application for eviction against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the entire reply in which the petitioner has specifically stated that the respondent-applicant was not the owner of the property and Smt. Chosar Devi is owner of the property and, accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner was to be allowed while summoning the said document from the possession of the applicant or Smt. Chosar Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited by attention towards judgment of this Court, reported in 2001 (4) RLW 377 (para 9) and submitted that when sufficient cause is explained (5) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra by the party seeking inspection of the document which is in power and possession of the contesting party the Court may allow the production of such document provided such production is necessary for the just decision of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited my attention towards another judgment reported in 1996 (3) RLW 222 and submits that the learned trial Court has committed gross illegality while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order 11 Rule 14, C.P.C. be accordingly allowed and the respondent-applicant may be directed to produce the relevant document as desired by the petitioner in the application for proper adjudication. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record of the case as well as order impugned dated 31.05.2008. Admittedly, the application was filed by the respondent showing himself as landlord of the shop in question. According to definition of 'landlord' in the Act of 2001, landlord means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, (6) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant. Meaning thereby, the application for eviction can be filed even by the person who is receiving the rent or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner is under misconception that application for eviction can only be filed by the title-holder. Further, in my opinion, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly passed order that the matter is required to be proved by the applicant that he is landlord. In the operative part of the order, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that in this proceedings the question of title is not in question. The scope of the application is to the extent of eviction only of the shop in question, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. In this case, the petitioner's claim is that under Order 11 Rule 12, C.P.C. the Court was under obligation to summon the document. I am unable to understand how such type of plea can be allowed in view of the language of Order 11 Rule 12, C.P.C. (7) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra which is as follows : “Production of documents-Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion be thought fit : Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.” Bare perusal of the language of Order 11 Rule 12 manifestly makes it clear that any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the document which is in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in the suit. Further, it is provided that on hearing of such application the Court can either refuse or adjourn the same if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary or not necessary at that stage of the suit. Similarly, Order 11 Rule 14 speaks that it shall be lawful for the Court at any time during the pendency of the suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of (8) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in the suit as the Court shall think right; and, the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just. Obviously, discretion is left to the Court to summon document. Learned Rent Tribunal while rejecting the application has, therefore, rightly observed that the proceedings is not in regard to deciding question of title in the case; but, it is for the purpose of eviction; and, so also, in the eviction matter the question of title is not required to be adjudicated upon by the Rent Tribunal. In this view of the matter, as per law also, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal is just and proper. In this case it is also required to be observed that the power left to the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised in routine manner because the legislature has enacted the Rent Control Act, 2001 as a special law in which under Section 21, a separate procedure has been laid down for deciding the matter and certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable; meaning thereby, for speedy justice in the eviction matters purposely the legislature has enacted the Act of 2001. Similarly, the provisions of revisional jurisdiction is also curtailed, therefore, no (9) Nanak Ram Lalwani Vs. Gajendra revision lies against an interlocutory order. If the legislature has purposely curtailed the right to revision against interlocutory order, then, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required to be exercised in routine manner. Of course, where error of law is apparent, interference can be made; but, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court should be slow in exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in civil proceedings. For this reason also, facts of the present case do not warrant any interference. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.