Rajasthan High Court

Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Atmaram vs Krishan Swaroop Goyal H.U.F on 12 August, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8590/2021

Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Atmaram, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Kamadiya, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.) At Present R/o Tenant In House N. A/21, Shanti Path, Tilak
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Krishan Swaroop Goyal H.u.f., Through Karta Shri Krishan
Swaroop Goyal Son Of Late Shri Bala Bux Goyal, Resident Of
House No. A/21, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uday Pradeep Gaur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

Reserved On 11/08/2021 Pronounced On 12/08/2021

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the order

dated 17/02/2021 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal,

Jaipur Metropolitan First (Raj.), whereby the Civil Appeal preferred

by the petitioner against the order dated 03/09/2019 passed by

the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan allowing the Rent

Application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 18 of

the Rent Control Act, 2001, has been dismissed and the order

dated 03/09/2019 has been affirmed.

2. The directions were issued to vacate the premises within a

period of three months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner-tenant had filed an application under Section 27 of the

(2 of 5) [CW-8590/2021]

Rajasthan Rent Control Act read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan

Stamps Act, 1998 and Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act

alleging that the lease deed could not have been taken on record

as it was not registered. The application was allowed vide order

dated 23/09/2015 by the learned Rent Tribunal. It was further

submitted that the dispute was not maintainable before the Rent

Tribunal and the rent was increased from Rs.6,500/- per month

under the terms of the lease deed after every year by 5% and

thus, the provisions of the Rent Control Act would not apply and

the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was

wrongly issued.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

landlord submitted that the landlord has become very old and is

almost 91 years of age and his wife is about 87 years of age and

both have been trying since long to get the premises evicted.

Learned counsel informed that the petitioner is not living in the

rented premises and has put it in lock and key and only continuing

this litigation to harass the respondents whose children do not live

with them. The petitioner, in one way of other, wants to get hold of

the property by raising frivolous objections. Learned counsel

further submitted that there is admittedly a relationship of tenant

and landlord between the parties and both the Courts below have

reached to a conclusion that the tenant is liable to be evicted. The

issue with regard to lease deed being registered is not required to

be gone into as the house was given on rent on a sum of

Rs.6,500/- per month for a period of 11 months. It was also

mentioned that as per the terms of the lease deed if the tenancy

continues for more than 12 months, a new lease deed will have to

be executed and the rent will be increased by 5%. However, the

(3 of 5) [CW-8590/2021]

petitioner neither executed any new lease deed nor he increased

the rent although he was required to pay the enhanced rent.

Learned counsel also informed that the petitioner creates nuisance

and also wants to use the house for commercial purpose and

harass the landlord. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment

passed by the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep

Srivastava: (2001) 2 SCC 604 to submit that the landlord

should not be penalized for slowness of the legal system.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties.

6. In Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava (supra), the

Apex Court has observed and held as under:-

"15. The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused.

16. Of course a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ) pointed out in another case Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt vs. Rashiklal Manilal Shah that the pendency of a lis for a record period of thirty one years has transformed a middle aged landlord to advanced stage of gerenry and at that stage he could not start a new business venture. After lamenting over the system which caused a whopping delay of thirty- one years the Bench made two directions. The first was that the son of the landlord who by that time had four and a half years more to go for reaching the superannuation age could consider starting the business in the tenanted premises after retirement. The second was that in the meanwhile the rent for the building would stand enhanced from Rs.101/- to Rs.3500/- per month.

(4 of 5) [CW-8590/2021]

17. Considering all the aforesaid decisions, we are of the definite view that the subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the appellant are too insufficient to overshadow the bona fide need concurrently found by the fact finding courts.

18. We wish to add, as an epilogue, that this case can provide a catalytic agent for the High Courts to evolve some concrete schemes for winching to the fore similar long pending matters, lying in torpidity at the bottom of the crammed list of pending cases in the High Courts after passing the initial orders, keeping the operative part of decrees in abeyance. It is worth considering whether a cell can be set up in each of such High Courts where the piles of backlog are a stirring problem, to pick out such cases to be brought to the notice of the Chief justice of the High Court concerned so that he could take appropriate steps in the matter.

19. The above is not an advice, but only a suggestion. If any alternative suggestion would appear better the same can be resorted to. The time is running out for doing something to solve the problem which has already grown into monstrous form. If a citizen is told that once you resort to legal procedure for realisation of your urgent need you have to wait and wait for 23 to 30 years, what else is it if not to inevitably encourage and force him to resort to extra legal measures for realising the required reliefs. A Republic, governed by rule of law, cannot afford to compel its citizens to resort to such extra legal means which are very often contra legal means with counter- productive results on the maintenance of law and order in the country."

7. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Shalini

Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil: (2010) 8

SCC 329 and in Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India &

Anr.: (2014) 10 SCC 1.

8. The observations, as noted above, show a dim picture. In the

present case, this Court finds that the landlord had given out part

(5 of 5) [CW-8590/2021]

of his house on rent for personal use to the petitioner in 2006. The

petitioner did not vacate the premises whereafter the respondent-

landlord filed application after giving notice under Section 106 of

the Transfer of Property Act in 2013 and after almost 8 years, the

matter comes up before this Court.