Rajasthan High Court
Tanaji Maratha Son Of Shir Vitthal ... vs Dwarka Prasad Son Of Shri Ram ... on 21 April, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 192/2021
Mahendra Kumar Garg S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Gupta, Aged About
47 Years, R/o Nearby Balaji Chowk, Hanumanji, Gangapur City,
Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) C/o Mahendra Medical Store,
Kachari Road, Gangapur City, Distt, Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dinesh Chand Garg S/o Sh. Balli Ram Garg, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Kachari Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur.
2. Om Prakash Garg S/o Sh. Balli Ram Garg, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Kachari Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur.
3. Smt Vidha Devi W/o Sh. Balli Ram Garg, R/o Kachari
Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
4. Damodar Lal Garg S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Gupta, R/o Balaji
Chowk, Hanumanji, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 199/2021
1. Bajrang Lal S/o Sh. Kalyan Baksh Saharwale, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Gangapur City, Proprietor Of M/s B.M.
Readymade Centre, Khari Bazar, Gangapur City, Distt.
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. M/s B.M. Readymade Centre, Khari Bazar, Gangapur City,
Distt. Sawai Madhopur Through Its Proprietor Bajrang Lal
S/o Sh. Kalyan Baksh Sahar Wale, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Gangapur City (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Dropadi Devi W/o Sh. Ghasi Lal Ameriya, Aged About 71
Years, R/o Gangapur City, Dist. Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondent
(2 of 5) [WMAP-192/2021]
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 32/2022
Tanaji Maratha Son Of Shir Vitthal Kulkarni, Aged About 75
Years, Resident Of Ghee Wali Gali, Gangapur City, District Sawai
Madhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Dwarka Prasad Son Of Shri Ram Kalyan Gupta, Resident Of Ghee
Wali Gali, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondent
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 196/2021
Mahendra Kumar Garg S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Gupta, Aged About
47 Years, R/o Nearby Balaji Chowk, Hanumanji, Gangapur City,
Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) C/o Mahendra Medical Store,
Kachhari Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dinesh Chand Garg S/o Sh. Balli Ram Garg, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Kachari Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Om Prakash Garg S/o Sh. Balli Ram Garg, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Kachari Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur.
3. Smt. Vidha Devi W/o Sh. Balli Ram Garg, R/o Kachari
Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.L.L.Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Vikram
Yadav, Adv.
Mr.D.K.Dixit, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Adv. for
Mr.Rajneesh Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Adv.
Mr.Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr.Dharmendra Jain, Adv. for
Mr.Arvind Kumar Arora, Adv.
Mr.Jitesh Jain, Adv.
(3 of 5) [WMAP-192/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
21/04/2022
In all these matters, misc. applications have been filed by
the petitioners for recalling/review of the order dated 05.10.2021,
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby this Court
had disposed of the writ petitions in view of the order passed by
the Apex Court on 10.08.2021 in Special Leave to Petition
No.15676/2021 (Chauthi Lal Agarwal (since deceased) Vs.
Abdul Majid).
Learned counsel for the parties informed this Court that now
controversy with regard to applicability of Rent Control Act has
been finally settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal
Nadani Vs. Sohan Lal Jain in Civil Appeal No.2816/2022
(SLP (Civil) No.2455/2022) decided vide order dated
12.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the Apex
Court has now interpreted Section 18 of the Rent Control Act and
has come to conclusion that the civil suits, which have been filed
prior to 11.05.2015 will be decided by the Civil Courts and there
will be no applicability of the Act.
The relevant portion of the order dated 12.04.2022 passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal Nadani Vs. Sohan
Lal Jain (supra) is quoted hereunder:-
"8. The civil court ceases to have jurisdiction to hear
and decide the petitions as only the Rent Tribunal
would have jurisdiction to decide such dispute but it
does not deal with the suits and proceedings initiated
and pending on the date of applicability of the Act to
the municipal area. There is no express or implied
provision in the Act in respect of the decrees passed
(4 of 5) [WMAP-192/2021]
prior to the applicability of the Act to the area in
question. The notification issued cannot have any
retrospective application or the Act contemplates the
applicability of the Act with retrospective effect
28. Under the Act in question, Section 18 does not
talk about the validity of 20 2022 SCC OnLine SC
9819 any decree of the civil court but only restricts
the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act
became applicable. The Act has come into force in
respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e.,
after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree
could validly be passed and executed. After the
applicability of the Act to the area in question, the
landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before
the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court.
However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to the
applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil
court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and
executable which is not interdicted by the applicability
of the Act to the area in question. The Act is
applicable to the area in question from the date
the notification came into force and it does not bar
the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such
civil suit.
29. Still further, one of the principles is that the rights
of the parties have to be determined on the date
when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the
suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day
when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of
the parties have to be examined as on the said day.
Recently, this Bench in a judgment reported as ECGC
Limited v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV was examining
the question as to whether the condition of deposit
while filing appeal under the Consumer Protection Act,
2019 would be applicable or the provisions as it
existed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
when the complaint was filed would be applicable.
This Bench considering 21 2022 SCC OnLine SC 184
the Constitution Bench judgments in Garikapati
Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry & Ors. Vitthalbhai
Naranbhai Patel v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.,
Nagpur and Hardeodas Jagannath v. The State of
Assam24 held that the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 would not be applicable to the
complaints filed prior to the commencement of the
2019 Act. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree
(5 of 5) [WMAP-192/2021]
passed in the suit for possession does not suffer from any
illegality."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
direction, which was given by this Court earlier while disposing of
the writ petition, now needs to be recalled, as per the order
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shankar Lal Nadani
Vs.Sohan Lal Jain (supra).
Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that
initial disposal of the writ petition by the order dated 05.10.2021
was during pendency of the case before the Apex Court and as
such now parties would be bound by the directions issued by the
Apex Court.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court, in view of the subsequent order passed by the
Apex Court, deems it proper to hold that the earlier order dated
05.10.2021 is now required to be given effect, as per the law laid
down by the Apex Court.
This Court, in view of the subsequent judgment, which has
been delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal
Nadani Vs. Sohan Lal Jain (supra), need not recall the order
dated 05.10.2021 and now all the parties would be bound by the
directions given by the Apex Court.
Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Monika/29, 30, 32 & 38
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
