Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balkishan vs Smt. Gulab Surana on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6649/2022
Balkishan S/o Shri Sualal, Aged About 74 Years, B/c Maheshwari,
Malpani, Owner Firm Sandeep Kumar Laxmikant, Dikhnada
Bazar, Sujangarh District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Gulab Surana W/o Shri Sumermal Surana, B/c Oswal R/o
Sujangarh District Churu At Present R/o P-38 Indian Exchange
Place (Arun Chambers) Third Floor, Kolkata (West Bengal).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr D.D.Chitlangi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
10/05/2022
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved with the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Senior Civil
Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short the trial court
hereinafter) in Original Civil Suit No.75/2011, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with
Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a
suit for eviction of shop in question and for recovery of due rent
against the petitioner under the provisions of Transfer of Property
Act. The said suit is pending consideration before the trial court in
which the petitioner put in his appearance and also filed his
written statement.
On 26.07.2016, the petitioner moved an application
under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to
(2 of 4) [CW-6649/2022]
allow him to make amendment in his written statement. In the
said application, the petitioner sought permission to incorporate a
ground to the effect that since in the Municipal Area, Sujangarh
also, the Rent Control Act, 2001 came into force w.e.f.
11.07.2014, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent before the
civil court for eviction is not maintainable. The said application
was objected by the respondent and the trial court vide impugned
order has dismissed the said application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
view of the decision passed by a Division Bench of this Court at
Jaipur Bench on 26.10.2017 rendered in D.B.Civil Reference
No.1/2015 titled as "K. Ramnarayan vs. Shri Pukhraj", suit filed by
the respondent before the trial court for eviction and recovery of
rent is not maintainable with the enforcement of Rajasthan Land
Control Act, 2001 in the Municipal Area, Sujangarh, where the
property in question is situated. It is submitted that the trial court
has illegally rejected the application of the petitioner on the
ground that the operation of judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramnarayan vs. Shri
Pukhraj (supra) has already been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, therefore, the ground sought to be incorporated in the
written statements filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed.
Learned counsel has submitted that the said observation of the
trial court is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is
prayed that a direction be issued to the trial court to allow the
application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed
by the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3 of 4) [CW-6649/2022]
The Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramnarayan vs.
Shri Pukhraj (supra) has held that with the enforcement of the Act
of 2001 in a municipal area, no civil court can entertain an
eviction petition. However, the operation of the said judgment of
the Division Bench has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in SLP and the same is still pending and this fact has also not been
disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shankerlal
Nadani vs. Sohanlal Jain, S.B.Civil Second Appeal
No.119/2021, reported in 2022(1) DNJ (Raj.) 31 considering
the above fact situation has held as under:
"25. The order dated 5.3.2018 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is well clear and gives a clear
reflection that by staying the operation of the order
dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench in
the Reference case of K.Ramnarayan (supra), same
is not required to be given effect to and need not be
followed further and thus, the pending or decided
eviction proceedings under the provisions of the TP
Act may continue despite coming into force of the
Act of 2001."
It is noticed that the judgment passed in Shankerlal
Nadani's case (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2816/2022 decided on
12.04.2022.
In view of the observation made by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Shankerlal Nadani's case (supra) and
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any
illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
(4 of 4) [CW-6649/2022]
Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the
same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
54-masif/-PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
