Whether tenant has right to file repeated applications without a substantial cause?

No doubt that the tenant has a right to file applications but has no right to file frivolous applications. The Code of Civil Procedure except to the very limited extent set out in the Act of 2001, does not attract to proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. Only principles of natural Justice have to be complied with by the Rent Tribunal/Appellate Rent Tribunal. There is thus no conceivable reason as to why repeated applications without a substantial cause should be filed before the Rent Tribunal to defeat the object and purpose of the Act of 2001.

4. Adrian Zuckerman in his book Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles and Practice, 3 rd Edition, 2013 states that the object of adjudication is public services to enforce rights and reach the correct decisions within constraints of time and costs. (emphasis mine). Like, no person can be entitled to the best possible medical service regardless of costs, no one can be similarly entitled to best possible adjudicatory outcome without regard to the time and costs. It has been further stated that when delays in adjudication occur they entail time and expenses for the courts and consequently, the public. The opposing party and other litigants whose time before the court is resultantly reduced are the suffering party. In the aforesaid legal philosophy relating to adjudicatory mechanism of the courts with which I fully affirm, repeated miscellaneous applications in the course of trials more particularly in the course of summary trials such as under the Rent Control Act, 2001 are an unacceptable obstruction to the public service of adjudication.
In the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur

(Before Alok Sharma, J.)

 Smt. Kamla Devi Bohrav. Bhagvan Das Bhatia, 

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16303/2017

Decided on October 3, 2017

2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2570

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to make repeated application?

The Mr. S.D. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has criticized the impugned order by contending that the learned Civil Judge has gone by equitable principles, but ignored the legal principles that were involved in the matter. Mr. Patil contended that in light of the observations in the Bailiff's Report, the petitioner was entitled to file the application urging that the execution proceedings be "dropped for impossibility of performance". Mr. Patil went to the extent of submitting that it is the right of a judgment debtor to make repeated applications to obstruct the decree and such applications cannot be rejected on the ground that the decree in question dates back to the year 1997. Mr. Patil also submitted that the learned Civil Judge has erred in directing execution by reference to plaint in Suit No. 18 of 2012, when in fact, the said suit concerned a dispute involving some other parties. For all these reasons, Mr. Patil submitted that the impugned order warrants interference by this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court is constrained to observe that the approach of the petitioner in the present case is nothing but the abuse of legal process. The petitioner appears to be a Cooperative Society and therefore, it is not unreasonable to presume that such society is litigating with the finances of its members as also finances which it may have obtained from the members of the public. The petitioner, is clearly under the misconception that it is the right of the petitioner Society to go on making repeated applications for obstruction of a decree, which in the present case has been made way back in the year 1997, on the grounds of its own notions of the law and legal position.IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2542 of 2015

Decided On: 26.03.2015

 Warna Valley Sahkari Kharedi Vikri Society Limited

Vs.

Ashok J. Gaikwad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: 2015(3) MHLJ 559

Print Page

Whether a person can file repeated application for information under RTI on same subject?

Answer-i)             The principle of res judicata applies to judicial proceedings and RTI application is not a proceeding,

ii)           The RTI application  is not a free service but a paid service under a right given by Parliament,  

iii)          The PIOs are servants of this democracy paid out of funds contributed by citizens and not masters AND the time and sources belongs to public. They work for   money and still they feel harassed providing information against prescribed fees.

iv)           The Act does not bar  filing of  frequent applications,

v)            An information obtained earlier may be lost at the hands of an applicant and he may require the same again,

Print Page