Moinuddin S/O Shri Alladin ... vs Nand Kishore Son Of Shri Birghi Lal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7748 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7748 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Moinuddin S/O Shri Alladin ... vs Nand Kishore Son Of Shri Birghi Lal ... on 12 December, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11092/2018


Moinuddin S/o Shri Alladi Musalman, aged about 48 years,
Resident of Lanka Gate, Chitor Road, Bundi, Rajasthan

                                                                  ----Petitioners

                                   Versus

Nand Kishore Son of Shri Birghi lal Sharma (deceased) through
its LRs-

1.     Smt. Krishana W/o Late Sh. Nandkishore

2.     Neetu D/o Late Sh. Nandkishore

3.     Bittu D/o Late Sh. Nandkishore

4.     Uttam Kumar S/o Late Sh. Nandkishore,

       All Residents Of Kagdi Dwera, Brahamnoi Ki Hatia, Bundi,
       Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Manoj Pareek

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Deepak Pareek



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                    Order

12/12/2022

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

tenant challenging the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bundi whereby the appeal filed by the

petitioner-tenant against the judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed

by the Rent Tribunal, Bundi was dismissed.

(2 of 4) [CW-11092/2018]

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed

an eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer on the

ground of default in payment of rent as well as recovery of arrears

of rent. The Rent Tribunal allowed the application filed by the

respondent-landlord vide order dated 31.03.2015.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2015, petitioner-

tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bundi

and the same was dismissed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bundi

vide order dated 21.02.2018.

Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that initially the

petitioner-tenant has taken the shops in dispute on rent from the

respondent-landlord in the year 2001 but after some time

petitioner-tenant has purchased the said shops orally on payment

of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, no sale deed was executed in this

regard.

Counsel for the petitioner-tenant further submits that the

findings recorded by learned courts below with regard to issue

No.1 is perverse; without application of mind, therefore, deserves

to be set aside.

Counsel for the respondent-landlord opposed the writ

petition and submitted that the Rent Tribunal has recorded finding

of fact after considering the evidence that there is a delay of four

months in making the payment of arrears of rent by the

petitioner-tenant.

Counsel for the respondent-landlord further submits that the

learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bundi has directed the

respondent-landlord to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and

(3 of 4) [CW-11092/2018]

the respondent-landlord has deposited the said amount in the

learned Rent Tribunal.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad

Ahmad and others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in

2008 (9) Supreme Court Cases 1 in para 38 helds as under:-

"38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal.

The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law."

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the learned Courts below

recorded the finding of fact in favour of the respondent-landlord

that the petitioner-tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent and

committed default in making payment for more than four months

despite service of notice upon the petitioner-tenant; secondly, the

fact of service of notice upon the petitioner-tenant with regard to

payment of rent has been admitted by the petitioner-tenant in the

cross-examination; thirdly, this Court cannot act as a Court of

(4 of 4) [CW-11092/2018]

appeal to re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the Courts below

while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution