Rajasthan High Court
M. Sajida W/O Late Shri Mohd. Hanif vs Smt. Munna Devi W/O Late Shri Tara ... on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3910/2020
M. Sajida W/o Late Shri Mohd. Hanif, Aged About 54 Years,
Resident Of Gali No.3, Plot No. 48, Opp. Geejgarh House, Hawa
Sarak, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Munna Devi W/o Late Shri Tara Chand Bakshi, R/o
Bakshi Bhawan, New Colony, Paach Batti, Jaipur
(Deceased)
2. Narendra Bakshi S/o Shri Tara Chand Bakshi, Aged About
72 Years, R/o D-98, Yashoda Path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Manish Bakshi S/o Shri Surendra Bakish, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Bakshi Bhawan, New Colony, Near Paach Batti,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nikhil Simlote, Adv. &
Mr. Hitesh Mishra, Adv. for
Mr.R.B.Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Bansiwal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
22/01/2021
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 27.01.2020, passed by the Rent
Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the order dated 09.09.2019,
passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has been upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had earlier filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5125/2010
and this Court vide order dated 01.08.2017, permitted the
petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file all the
(2 of 3) [CW-3910/2020]
legal and factual objections in respect of execution of judgment
dated 09.03.2010, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur
City upholding the judgment and certificate of possession dated
25.03.2009.
Learned counsel submitted that after withdrawal of the writ
petition, the petitioner had filed her objections before the Rent
Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had
specifically pleaded that the decree/certificate of possession in
favour of the applicant-landlord-Munni Devi Bakshi could not have
been executed against the petitioner and the petitioner was
entitled to retain the possession.
Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 09.09.2019
was also challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate
Court without considering the entire facts, dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioner and as such, now execution is to take place.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr.Nikhil Simlote,
submitted that entitlement of the petitioner to remain in
possession cannot be doubted as the petitioner is admittedly wife
of Late Shri Mohd. Hanif and her name is Sajida.
Learned counsel submitted that one Rasida was in fact
treated as wife of Mohd. Shrif and as such the order could have
been executed against Rasida and the petitioner not being Rasida
could not have been evicted from the premise in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after making submissions
urged that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of
the Court below, at least some time may be granted to the
petitioner to vacate the premise in question.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
decree-holder/landlord of the property - Munni Devi has expired
(3 of 3) [CW-3910/2020]
and in her place now her son Narendra Bakshi is pursuing the
execution proceedings.
Learned counsel submitted that the certificate of possession,
issued way back in 2009 is yet to be executed and all sorts of
objections are filed in the Execution Application, resulting in
execution order not being implemented.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that both the Courts below have considered
all aspects of the matter and in Execution proceedings, all the
objections raised by the petitioner, have been duly considered.
This Court does not find any error in the orders passed by
both the Courts below and accordingly the petition being devoid of
merit stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Monika/Sakshi/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
