Kamla Devi Shotria vs Shri Sitaram Sat. Bhawan Sewa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7487 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1885/2017 Kamla Devi Shotria W/o Shri Madan Lal Shotria, aged about 75 years, R/o Shop No. 2, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharmasala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1844/2017 Kalashi Devi W/o Rajmal Tak, aged about 59 years, R/o M/s. Sunil Pharma Shop No. 7, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1845/2017 Shanti Lal Babel S/o Shri Amarchand Babel, aged about 46 years, R/o M/s. Sarthi Medicos, Shop No. 11, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

(2 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1883/2017 Vinod Choudhary S/o Shri Hardayal Choudhary, aged about 55 years, R/o M/s Vinod Tent House, Shop No. 4, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2126/2017 Sushil Choudhary S/o Shri Hardayal Singh Choudhary, aged about 45 years, R/o M/s. Choudhary Tent House, Shop No. 12, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2130/2017 Om Prakash S/o Shri Puranmal Tailor, aged about 70 years, R/o Shop No. 13, M/s. J.p. Tailor, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala,

(3 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2250/2017 Shyam Lal S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Sen, aged about 72 years, R/o M/s. Shyam Engineering Works, Shop No. 6, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2259/2017 Kalashi Devi W/o Rajmal Tak, aged about 59 years, R/o M/s Sunil Pharma Shop No. 10, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2365/2017 Bashir Mohammad S/o Shri Nasiruddin Sekh, aged about 85 years, R/o Shop No. 15, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                 Versus


                                        (4 of 11)                 [CW-1885/2017]

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2368/2017 Shyam Lal S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Sen, aged about 72 years, R/o Shop No. 5, Shri Sitaran Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2369/2017 Daulat Ram Tak S/o Shri Ratan Lal Tak, aged about 72 years, R/o M/s Om Homeyo Clinic Shop No. 8, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

2. Principal, Medial Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Member, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2370/2017 Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh Chouhan, aged about 55 years, R/o Shop No. 1, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

                                                                 ----Petitioner



                                       (5 of 11)                 [CW-1885/2017]


                                Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2371/2017 Pramod Choudhary S/o Shri Hardhyal Choudhary Proprietor Jai Ambay Tailors Bhilwara Tent House, aged about years, R/o Shop No. 3, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2630/2017 Banshi Lal S/o Mangi Lal Mali, aged about 65 years, R/o Shop No. 9, M/s. Giriraj Auto Services, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara Through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara

2. Principal, Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital And Members, Secretary, Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Managing Committee, Bhilwara

----Respondents

(6 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat, Mr.Vipul Dharnia, Mr. Dipendra Singh Rao, Mr. Shubham Modi Mr. Shashank R Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa Ms. Vandana Bhansali

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

19/05/2022

The present batch of writ petitions arise out of the identical

facts, therefore, the same are being decided by this common

order.

For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

1885/2017 (Kamla Devi Shotria vs. Shri Sitaram Sat. Bhawan

Sewa Sami. & Anr.) are being taken into consideration for deciding

the present controversy.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were

rented shops by the respondent - Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan

Sewa Samiti, Dharmasala, Bhilwara which is a society registered

under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. The shops

were rented on different rents as mentioned in the rent note. In

the year 2001, the rent was increased by the society and

petitioners agreed to pay the increased rent. In the year 2012, the

rent was increased almost ten times of rent of the shop and

thereafter the respondents themselves reassessed the rent and

reduced the same by 50%. Since the petitioners were threatened

by the respondents of eviction from the rented premises, the

petitioners preferred an application under Section 18 read with

Sections 21 and 23 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001

(7 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') before the Rent

Tribunal, Bhilwara. The Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowed the

applications of the petitioners vide order dated 25.07.2013

(Annex.10) directing the respondents to revise the increased rent

of the rented premises i.e. shops in accordance with Section 6 of

the Act of 2001 and the petitioners shall not be evicted without

following due process of law. This order dated 25.07.2013 passed

by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara was challenged by way of filing an

appeal by the respondents before the Appellate Rent Tribunal,

Bhilwara and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowed the

appeal preferred by the respondents vide its judgment dated

28.01.2017 (Annex.12). Aggrieved by the order passed by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 21.08.2017, the present writ

petitions have been filed.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioners are tenants of the shops and are duly paying their rent

from time to time and since the respondents increased the rent of

the shops in violation of the Act of 2001 and an exorbitant amount

of rent was asked from petitioners, therefore, they were forced to

file an application before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. He further

submits that the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has decided the

application correctly in conformity with the provisions of law. He

further submits that the order passed by the Appellate Rent

Tribunal is based on a Notification purportedly issued by the State

Government notifying the fact that the suit property belongs to

the State Government and since it has been notified as such in the

Gazette Notification issued by the State Government, therefore, as

per Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had

no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Learned Senior Counsel

(8 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

submits that such Notification declaring the suit property to be the

State property was never brought on record before the Appellate

Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara nor was produced at the time of hearing

before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel further

submits that since there is no documentary evidence produced on

record even before this Court to show that the suit property

belongs to the State Government, the findings recorded by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is incorrect and perverse. Since

no other ground has been taken into consideration by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, therefore, the order dated

28.01.2017 is required to be quashed and set aside. He further

submits that since the property still continues to be the property

under the ownership of respondent No.1, therefore, the Rent

Tribunal, Bhilwara had jurisdiction and their applications were

correctly decided by it. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions

may be allowed and the appellate order dated 28.01.2017 may be

quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal,

Bhilwara does not suffer from any infirmity as sufficient material

was placed before the Appellate Authority to show that the shops

in question are the properties of the State Government and,

therefore, as per Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal,

Bhilwara had no jurisdiction to deal with the applications preferred

by the petitioners. She submits that in reply, the entire fact of the

shops being under the ownership of the State Government has

been placed on record which conclusively goes to show that the

order passed by the Appellate Authority is just, proper and

correct. She frankly submits that the Gazette Notification

(9 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

mentioned in the appellate order could not be produced before the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and in view of the directions

issued by this Court also, she is unable to lay her hands on the

same for placing it before this Court. She, therefore, submits that

no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Appellate

Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

gone through the record of the case including the impugned order.

The fact of the petitioners being the tenants of the property

i.e. shops in question is not disputed and they still continue to be

the tenants of the shops of respondent No.1 since the year 1996.

The petitioners had been paying the rent due to the respondents

from time to time. The petitioners approached the Rent Tribunal

on the ground of increased rent in violation of the Act of 2001,

and, therefore, their applications preferred under Section 18 read

with Section 21 and 23 of the Act of 2001 were allowed. Aggrieved

of the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, the respondents

preferred an appeal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara

allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents on the ground

that the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had no jurisdiction to deal with

the matter as rented shops of the petitioners are the property of

the State Government by virtue of a Gazette Notification issued. It

is surprising that neither the date of such Gazette Notification is

mentioned nor any particulars of the same have been mentioned

by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. There is no dispute with

respect to the fact that the Gazette Notification was ever produced

before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. The finding arrived at

by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is without any basis as no

such Gazette Notification has ever been issued.

(10 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

To satisfy with respect to the issuance of the Gazette

Notification, this Court on 06.05.2022 directed learned counsel for

the respondents to place on record the Gazette Notification

mentioned in the appellate order declaring the suit property to be

the property of State Government and the matter was placed on

11.05.2022. Again on 11.05.2022, learned counsel for the

respondent took last opportunity to get the Gazette Notification for

producing the same before this Court and, therefore, the matter

was adjourned for 19.05.2022. Today, when a pointed query is

made by the Court to learned counsel for the respondents for

producing the copy of the Gazette Notification mentioned by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara before this Court, she frankly

submitted that no such notification has been issued by the State

Government and, therefore, the same cannot be produced before

this Court. The only conclusion which can be drawn by this Court

in such circumstances is that the the Appellate Rent Tribunal,

Bhilwara has grossly committed an error while deciding the

appeals preferred by the respondents solely on the ground of such

notification which was never issued and was not in existence on

the date of the decision of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara

and not only that, the same has not been produced before this

Court despite having given two opportunities for producing the

same. This Court, therefore, can safely presume that such

Notification was never issued and, therefore, the basis on which

the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has proceeded to allow the

appeals preferred by the respondents is liable to be quashed and

set aside.

(11 of 11) [CW-1885/2017]

Needless to say that if such Notification has not been issued

then there is no question of taking into consideration Section 18 of

the Act of 2001.

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are

allowed and the appellate order dated 28.01.2017 is quashed and

set aside.

However, it is made clear that the order passed in these writ

petitions will not prejudice the case of the parties, if any other

proceedings in accordance with law are undertaken by them.

The stay applications and other pending applications, if any,

also stand dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 7-20/SanjayS/KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)