Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Gurmeet Jaiswal vs Saransh Tripathi on 1 March, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 CR-22-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CR No. 22 of 2025
(SMT. GURMEET JAISWAL AND OTHERS Vs SARANSH TRIPATHI )
Dated : 01-03-2025
Shri G.K. Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Umesh Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent/ caveator.
This revision has arisen out of the order dated 04.12.2024 passed in
Case No. 0003/A-90(7)/2022-23 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Ranjhi, Jabalpur and Rent Control Authority (Annexure C/1).
The basis grievance of the applicants is that they were not given
proper hearing as per Rent Control Act with due process of natural justice
whereas the basic contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that
applicants are tenants of Shri Saransh Tripathi. Incidentally Saransh Tripathi
is son of arguing counsel Shri Umesh Tripathi.
Learned counsel for the applicants Shri Girish Shrivastava made this
Court to go through the various order-sheets to establish that how the court
proceeded on whims and fancies while passing the order and fixing the dates
without informing the parties. For example on the strength of the certified
copy placed on record that on 09.02.2024 the case was fixed for 29.02.2024
but after cutting the date it was fixed for 21.02.2024. When the case was
fixed for 14.08.2024, in the order-sheet it is mentioned that none appeared
for the applicants. Presiding Officer is busy in official duty, therefore, case
was adjourned but there is cutting on date and it is not legible as to what
earlier date was marked and what date is mentioned below that date and if the
2 CR-22-2025
amended date below over written date is to be believed then case was fixed
for 27.09.2024 but there is no order-sheet of 27.09.2024 and date is
27.11.2024.
At this stage, this Court asks the respondent counsel whether he doubts
the certified copy issued by the concerned officer, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that he is not disputing that these order-sheets are not
correct. Therefore, it is seen that instead of 27.09.2024, case was taken up on
27.11.2024 and on that day, it is mentioned that advocates of both the parties
were present and evidence of the applicant is recorded and the case was fixed
for arguments and order but no date was marked. There is an order-sheet
written of 04.12.2024 in which it has been mentioned that arguments of both
the parties were heard. The order passed separately and record to be
consigned to the record room but that order-sheet is cut by strokes of pen and
it is not signed and there is a order passed on 29.10.2024 i.e. final order and
detailed order disposing of the applications were passed.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this
might be simply clerical error of copying section in not issuing this certified
copies in proper sequence and issuing certified copies haphazardly. He
further submitted that the fact is that rent has not been deposited by the
revisionists. Order of the competent authority are well justified and he
deserves no relief in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Martin and Harris Private Limited and another Vs. Rajendra Mehta and
others, (2022) 8 SCC 527 and State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Super
Max International Private Limited and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 772.
3 CR-22-2025
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, case is reserved for
orders.
Till the next date of hearing, both the parties shall maintain status quo
as on today regarding the suit property and concerned eviction proceedings
shall not be carried out.
To verify the situation, let record of the case be summoned within
seven working days from the Rent Control Authority.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
