Krishan Lal vs Shri Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 5129 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15950/2021 Krishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Ram, Aged About 48 Years, B/c Nai, R/o C/o Shop No. 4, Dhundara Market, Odian Hair Dresses, In Front Of Chahal Chowk, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus Shri Ram S/o Shri Dharamveer, B/c Kumhar, R/o C/o 51, Dhundara Market, In Front Of Chahal Chowk, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Gyan Jyoti Gupta
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. A.K. Babel


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
                          Order

06/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.09.2021 passed by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the Appellate Tribunal') in Rent Appeal Case

No.11/2020, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under

Section 19 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the Act of 2001') has been dismissed.

The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the

judgment dated 14.08.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri

Ganganagara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rent Tribunal') in

Rent Application No.65/2018 (CIS No.67/2018), whereby the

application filed by the respondent under Section 9(a) of the Act

of 2001 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the

(2 of 3) [CW-15950/2021]

premises in question within a period of six months and also

directed to pay the due rent.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an

eviction application under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 on the

ground of default in payment of rent with the contention that the

premises in question was rented out to the father of the petitioner

long back and after the death of father of the petitioner, the

petitioner has not been paying the rent since March 2005.

It is alleged that the registered notices were served upon the

petitioner at the rented premises and as well as his residence on

18.08.2018 and 20.08.2018 respectively, however, despite that he

did not pay the due rent and as such the eviction order may be

passed in favour of the respondent.

The petitioner contested the eviction application mainly on

the ground that the so called notices sent by the respondent were

never served upon him.

The Rent Tribunal, after taking into consideration the

evidence adduced by the parties concerned, has held that the

petitioner in his evidence has admitted his signatures on Exhibit-5

acknowledgment receipt of registered notice, which was sent at

his business address, and also admitted that the address given in

the eviction application and affidavit is correct. After taking into

consideration the above evidence, the Rent Tribunal has concluded

that the respondent (AW-1) has proved that he had sent the legal

notices Exhibit-1 at the business and residential addresses of the

petitioner through registered posts, receipts of which are exhibited

as Exhibit-2 and 3, and he has also proved that the notices were

served upon the petitioner. The Rent Tribunal has further

(3 of 3) [CW-15950/2021]

concluded that the petitioner has not paid the rent due since 2005

as he has failed to produce any proof that he has already paid the

due rent to the respondent.

The Rent Tribunal has observed that even after service of

notices Exhibit-1, sent by the respondent, the petitioner has failed

to deposit the due rent in the bank account of the respondent,

details of which were mentioned in the notices itself. After

observing this, the Rent Tribunal has passed the eviction order

vide judgment dated 14.08.2020.

The Appellate Tribunal, after taking into consideration the

evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 21.09.2021 has

upheld the eviction order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the Rent

Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the respondent has informed this Court

that the execution proceedings are already over and the

respondent has already received the possession of the premises in

question pursuant to the order passed in the execution

proceedings.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the impugned judgments passed by both the tribunals

below, I don't find any case for interference in the concurrent

findings arrived at by both the tribunals below.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)