Geeta Kanwar W/O Late Shri Govind ... vs Munni Begam W/O Late Shri Munner ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6934 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12836/2022
Geeta Kanwar W/o Late Shri Govind Dan Barethe, Aged About 71
Years, Resident Of Naagtlai Kachhi Basti, New Aanaj Mandi,
Surajpole, Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Munni Begam W/o Late Shri Munner Khan, Resident Of
        House No. 27 Naagtlai Kachhi Basti, New Aanaj Mandi,
        Surajpole, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2.      Akaram Rana S/o Shri Pheerbaksh, Resident Of House No.
        206 Naagtlai Kachhi Basti, New Aanaj Mandi, Surajpole,
        Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B Sharma for Mr. Naeem Uddin Aqil

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

01/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India assailing the judgment dated 21.05.2019

passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, in Civil

Appeal No.83/17 whereby, while partly allowing the appeal

preferred by the respondents/tenants against the final order dated

24.01.2017 passed by learned Rent Tribunal No.1, Jaipur

(Additional Senior Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan) in original

application No.146/2004 whereby, the application filed by the

petitioner/ landlord under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control

Act, 2001 (for brevity "the Act of 2001"), was partly allowed and

recovery certificate was issued for default in payment of rent, the

findings on issue no.1 have been reversed.

(2 of 4) [CW-12836/2022]

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner filed an

application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the

respondents seeking their eviction from the suit premises

comprising a house survey No.27, Naagtlai Kacchi Basti, New

Ananj Mandi, Surajpole, Jaipur on the grounds of default in

payment of rent, parting with possession for consideration and

material alteration. The application was allowed by the learned

Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide its final order dated 24.01.2017 qua

default in payment of rent only, i.e., issue no.1.

In the appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondents, the

findings vide issue no.1 were reversed by the learned Appellate

Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 21.05.2019, the

subject matter of this writ petition.

Assailing the order, learned counsel for petitioner contended

that findings of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal are perverse.

He submits that without meeting the reasonings assigned by the

learned Rent Tribunal in its final order dated 24.01.2017, the

learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has erred in reversing the findings

on issue no.1. Learned counsel submitted that since the tenants

had failed to establish that they paid the rent for the period of

default; the issue no.1 could not have been decided in their

favour. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the

judgment dated 21.05.2019 be quashed and set aside and the

final order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal

be restored.

Heard. Considered.

While reversing the findings qua issue no.1, the learned

Appellate Rent Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding based

on material on record that the petitioner/landlord could not

(3 of 4) [CW-12836/2022]

establish that the respondents committed default in payment of

rent so as to entitle her to a recovery certificate on that count.

Although, it was claimed in the original application filed by the

petitioner that the rent from the month of January, 2002 was due

against the respondents which they did not pay despite the

service of notice dated 14.08.2003; but, during the course of her

cross examination as PW-1, she has stated that when the notice

was given, rent for 2-3 months was due. She has further admitted

during the course of her cross examination that neither she was

aware as to how much rent was due when the notice was issued

nor, she was aware as to how much rent was deposited by the

respondents. She stated as PW-1 that account of the rent received

was maintained by her daughter, who, was not produced in the

witness box. Other two witnesses examined on her behalf namely,

Liyakat (PW-2) and Habeeb Khan (PW-3) have stated that they

claim default in payment of rent on the basis of information

furnished by the petitioner/applicant. Thus, the petitioner failed to

establish default in payment of rent for a period of four months.

After going through the final order dated 24.01.2017 passed by

the learned Rent Tribunal, this court is convinced that the learned

Appellate Rent Tribunal did not err in recording a finding that the

issue no.1 was decided by the learned Rent Tribunal in favour of

the petitioner misplacing burden of onus upon the respondents

even when the petitioner had failed to discharge initial burden of

proof of the issue no.1 upon her.

In view thereof, this court is not satisfied that the judgment

dated 21.05.2019 suffers from any perversity or patent

jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in its

(4 of 4) [CW-12836/2022]

limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.

This writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

CHHAYA AWASTHI /41

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)