Rajasthan High Court
Mahendra Kumar Jain Son Of Shri ... vs Appellate Rent Tribunal on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 853/2019
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1953/2010
Mahendra Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Suresh Chand Khinvsara, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of A.m.c. No. 7/10, Sardar Patel Marg,
Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer.
2. Rent Tribunal, Ajmer.
3. Smt Shail Bhargava Wife Of Shri Amarnath Bhargava,
Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 1A/10, Sardar Patel
Marg, Ajmer.
4. Smt. Priti Malik Wife Of Shri Narendra Malik And Daughter
Of Late Shri Amar Nath Bargava, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of 1A/10, Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer.
5. Puneet Bhargava Son Of Late Shri Amar Nath Bargava,
Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 1A/10, Sardar Patel
Marg, Ajmer Mentally Retarded Through His Natural
Guardian (Mother) Smt. Shail Bhargava Wife Of Shri
Amarnath Bhargava, Resident Of 1A/10, Sardar Patel
Marg, Ajmer.
6. Smt. Pritam Bhargava Daughter Of Late Shri Amar Nath
Bhargava, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 1A/10,
Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mishra Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari
Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Malik Advocate with Mr.
Puru Malik Advocate through Video
Conferencing.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
(2 of 3) [SAW-853/2019]
Order
10/08/2021
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that in view
of the reference answered by the Larger Bench of this Court vide
order dated 27.07.2021, the present appeal is not maintainable.
Vide order dated 01.08.2019, following questions were
sought to be referred for determination by a Larger Bench of this
court:
"I) Whether the appeal against the judgment of the
Single Bench, reversing/upholding the judgment of the
Appellate Rent Tribunal and/or the Rent Tribunal, would
be maintainable before the Division Bench of this court
under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules of
1952?
II) Whether the writ petition filed against the judgment
of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal by
very nature of the dispute, would be considered to have
been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
irrespective of invocation of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the pleadings?"
The Larger Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021
has answered the reference as under:
"In the result, we answer the questions referred in terms
that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal
Constituted under the Act of 2001, while adjudicating the
disputes between landlord and tenant, exercising the
judicial power of the State, discharge judicial functions,
which are akin to judicial functions discharged by civil
Courts and thus, keeping in view the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions including
in Radhey Shyam and Life Insurance Corporation of
India, the judicial orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and
the Appellate Rent Tribunal are not amenable to writ
(3 of 3) [SAW-853/2019]
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the
legality of said judicial orders can only be questioned by
invoking power of superintendence of this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution and thus, no intra-Court
appeal would be maintainable against the orders passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court in such
proceedings."
In view of the order dated 27.07.2021, this appeal is not
maintainable.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J
Sanjay Kumawat-6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
