Lallan Kumar Mehta S/O Shri ... vs Anoop Mathur S/O Shri Roopchand ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6550 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR
              S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.148/2022
Lallan Kumar Mehta S/o Shri Ramchandra Mehta, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Plot No. 148, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Anoop Mathur S/o Shri Roopchand Mathur, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Plot No. 101/8, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Aayush Mali


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
                     Judgment
11/10/2022

1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner-tenant

against order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.2

in case No.333/2017 whereby application under Order VII Rule 11

CPC filed by respondent-landlord has been rejected.

2. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under

Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against

petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need for his

aged mother and brother as well, who shifted from Jodhpur to

Jaipur.

3. Petitioner-tenant, in his reply to the eviction petition, has

admitted his tenancy and the fact that rented premise was let out

by respondent-landlord. However, by way of filing an application

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, petitioner-tenant has raised an

objection that since the rented premise is unpartitioned property

as admitted by respondent-landlord in his statements, the eviction

petition is not maintainable.

4. Learned Rent Tribunal, vide impugned order dated

16.07.2022 has dismissed the application filed by petitioner under

(2 of 2) [CR-148/2022]

Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating inter alia that firstly, petitioner-

tenant admits that respondent-landlord let out rented premise to

him and secondly, the eviction petition is pending since 2016 and

the High Court has directed to decide this eviction petition

expeditiously, therefore, the application was found as malicious

and has been dismissed.

5. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error on the part

of Rent Tribunal in dismissing the application. Once the petitioner-

tenant admits his tenancy with respondent-landlord, he is

estopped by virtue of Section 115 of the Evidence Act to raise

such defence moreover, in the given facts and circumstances such

defence does not lie in the mouth of tenant where the other co-

sharers/co-owners have raised no objection against

maintainability of the eviction petition, instituted by one of the co-

owners. Therefore, there is no force in the application filed by

petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the same has rightly

been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal.

6. In the backdrop of such pleadings as also for the reason that

the eviction petition is based on the ground of bona fide necessity

of landlord, the application filed by petitioner-tenant under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC is wholly misconceived and is not liable to be

accepted. The Rent Tribunal has not committed any illegality or

jurisdictional error in dismissing the application as such impugned

order dated 16.07.2022 does not call for any interference.

7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

8. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/80

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)