Shyamsundar vs Bhagwan Shri Satyanarayan Temple ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9135 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7370/2022

Shyamsundar S/o Late Shri Braj Mohan, Aged About 90 Years, By Caste Bagdiya, R/o Bagdiya Gas Service, Subhash Chowk, Churu.

----Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Shri Satyanarayan Temple Trust, Churu Through Their Power Of Attorney Holder Kanhayala S/o Jeevan Mal, By Caste Saukal, R/o Ladnu, At Present Ward No. 39 Churu.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sharwan Kumar Ojha
                               Ms. Radhika Upadhyay
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Om Rajpurohit
                               Mr. Shashi Shekhar Patil



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

13/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Rent

Tribunal, Churu (for short 'the rent tribunal'), whereby the

application filed on behalf of the respondent has been disposed of

while giving direction to the petitioner to vacate the premises in

question and handed over possession of the same to the

respondent while observing that otherwise the eviction application

filed on behalf of the respondent will be decided on merits.

Brief facts of the case are that an eviction petition under

Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed on behalf of the

respondent alleging therein that the respondent has rented out

two shops to the petitioner, however, he has converted the said

(2 of 3) [CW-7370/2022]

two shops in four shops and has also illegally encroached over the

open land (Nohra) situated behind the shops. It is further alleged

that the petitioner has sub-let two shops without consent of the

respondent and has also made some material changes in the

property in question. Thus, it was prayed that the petitioner may

be evicted from the shops in question and the recovery certificate

may be issued in favour of the respondent.

Reply to the eviction petition was filed on behalf of the

petitioner. In the meantime, the parties have entered into an

agreement on 13.04.2016, which was duly verified by the rent

tribunal. As per the said agreement, the petitioner had agreed to

purchase the open land (Nohra) in question, which was allegedly

encroached by him and has also agreed to hand over possession

of two shops in question rented out to him.

Pursuant to the said agreement, the respondent has

executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the

open land (Nohra) and also handed over possession of the same

to him. Later on, the petitioner has refused to vacate and

handover possession of the shops rented out to him to the

respondent on the ground that the Municipal Council concerned is

not recognizing him as owner of the disputed property in question

and, therefore, he is not bound to vacate and handover possession

of the shops to the respondent.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has moved an

application before the rent tribunal with a prayer that the

petitioner may be asked to vacate and handover possession of the

shops in question as per the agreement entered into between the

parties. The petitioner has opposed the same, however, on

07.04.2022 the rent tribunal after hearing both the parties has

(3 of 3) [CW-7370/2022]

directed the petitioner to vacate and handover possession of the

shops in question to the respondent within a period of two months

while observing that otherwise the eviction petition will be decided

on merit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the impugned order as well as the material available on

record, I do not find any case for interference.

The apprehension of the petitioner that the rent tribunal will

pass a final order in accordance with the order dated 07.04.2022

is ill founded. This Court is of the opinion that when the rent

tribunal itself has clearly said that if the petitioner fails to vacate

and handover possession of the shops in question to the

respondent within a period of two months the matter will be

decided on merit, it cannot be assumed that the rent tribunal will

decide the eviction petition only on the basis of the order dated

07.04.2022 without going into the merit of eviction petition.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in

this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 61-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)