Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Curious Campus Sansthan vs Prabhat Jain (2023:Rj-Jd:42488) on 6 December, 2023
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:42488]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14781/2023
Curious Campus Sansthan, 6 A, Mahaveer Colony, Ashok Nagar,
Udaipur (Rajasthan) Through Founder Secretary Abhay Jain S/o
Late Madan Raj Jain, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 102, Paark View
Apartment, Near Baskin Robbins Ice-Cream Parlor, Sukhadia
Circle, Panchwati, New Fatehpura, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Prabhat Jain S/o Late Basanti Lal Jain, Aged About 63
Years, R/o 6-A, Mahaveer Colony, Ashok Nagar, Main
Road, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Smt. Anila Jain W/o Abhay Jain, R/o Flat No. 707, Sun
Tower, Rudra Vihar, Keshav Nagar, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 06/12/2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the present petitioner may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(i) the order/judgment dated 31.08.2023 (Annex-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and application (Annexure/3), filed by the applicant/petitioner may kindly be allowed as such.
(ii) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and (Downloaded on 13/12/2023 at 08:32:11 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42488] (2 of 5) [CW-14781/2023] circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, with an averment that the applicant/respondent No.1 is the owner of the premises in question. The said premises was given on rent to respondent No.2 on 15.01.2002 by father of the respondent No.1 Late Shri Basantilal Jain for Rs.8,500/- per month.
3. Father of respondent No.1-Shri Basanti Lal Jain died on 07.02.2007 and before his death, he executed a will on 06.08.2006 for the said premises according to which, ground floor of the premises was given to his wife. Soon after the death of her wife, eastern portion of the house was given to the brother of respondent No.1 and western part of the premises was given to the applicant/respondent No.2 on rent. The learned trial court issued notices to respondent No.2 in this regard but the respondent No.2 preferred not to appear before the learned tribunal. Thus, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against respondent No.2.
4. The applicant/petitioner filed an application for impleading him as a party respondent wherein he clearly submitted that the applicant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 filed the application before rent tribunal in collusion with each other, whereas, the applicant/petitioner is in possession of the premises in question and Curious Campus Sansthan is running a school in the said premises. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.2 was served on her address and not on the rented premises. The respondent No.1 filed reply to the application and (Downloaded on 13/12/2023 at 08:32:11 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42488] (3 of 5) [CW-14781/2023] denied the averments made in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
5. The learned trial court heard the arguments on the application and rejected the application vide order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure-5). Being aggrieve thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:-
(a) The learned Tribunal has relied upon the rent agreement entered between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 despite the fact that the said agreement is false and fabricated.
(b) The respondents Nos.1 and 2 in collusion, filed the eviction application in order to evict the petitioner from the premises in question, as the possession of the same is with the petitioner.
(c) The father of the applicant/respondent No.1, by way of an oral agreement, gave possession of the said premises in question to the petitioner without any rent for running the charitable sansthan for the welfare of the children and therefore, the petitioner is required to be impleaded as party respondent.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that:-
(a) Petitioner in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the tribunal has not made any averments that the premises in dispute were given to the petitioner-sansthan by the father of respondent No.1 for the purpose of running the sansthan as per an oral agreement and in the writ petition the said averment has been made.
(b) The registration of the petitioner-sansthan has been made on 29.02.2008 (Annex.R/5) and the father of respondent No.1 (Downloaded on 13/12/2023 at 08:32:11 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42488] (4 of 5) [CW-14781/2023] expired on 07.02.2007 (Annex.R/4), thus, the petitioner's contentions that the premises in dispute were given on rent basis to the petitioner by father of respondent No.1, is absolutely false and frivolous because father of respondent No.1 was expired way back in the year 2007 and the sansthan could be run only after its registration which has been duly made in the year, 2008.
(c) It is writ large the premises were given on rent to the respondent No.2, which is evident from a perusal of the agreement entered between the parties and thus, the petitioner could not be said to be a necessary party in the litigation pending before the Rent Tribunal.
(d) The petitioner has failed to place on record any documents in order to demonstrate that the premises in dispute were given on rent to the petitioner for the purpose of running the petitioner Sansthan.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available no record.
9. The Rent Tribunal, in the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annex.-5), has categorically observed that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-Sansthan through the Secretary-Abhay Jain, who is the husband of respondent No.2- Anila Jain and further that the petitioner/applicant has failed to show the prejudice that would be caused as he has failed to demonstrate the details in order to show that the premises in dispute was given away on rent in favour of the petitioner by the father of the respondent No.1. The learned tribunal has also observed that the petitioner has failed to show the date when the (Downloaded on 13/12/2023 at 08:32:11 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42488] (5 of 5) [CW-14781/2023] tenancy was established with the applicant-petitioner and also the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent owner.
10. This Court finds that the onus of proving the relationship of tenant and landlord was upon the shoulder of the petitioner but the petitioner is unable to prove the same and has further failed to demonstrate before this Court that the petitioner is a necessary party for the adjudication of the application filed before the rent tribunal and the prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner, if not impleaded as a party in the application pending before the tribunal as nothing has been placed on record to fortify the submission that the premises in dispute was given to the petitioner on rent basis by the father of the respondent No.1.
11. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and no interference is called for in the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annex.-5) passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Udaipur. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/257- (Downloaded on 13/12/2023 at 08:32:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)