Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhati Udhyog vs Smt. Sunita Panwar on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/008004]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17606/2022
Bhati Udhyog, Through Its Partner Shri Bhopal Singh S/o Shri
Bhanu Singh Bhati, Aged About 75 Years, Address In Front Of
Radha Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sunita Panwar W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o Plot No. 618 A,
Residency Road, Near 12Th Pal Road Circle, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki
Mr. Ashok Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Chopra
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 29/03/2023
Pronounced on 04/04/2023
1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is prayed that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner may kindly be accepted and by an appropriate
writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction:-
i. by an appropriate writ order or direction, an Order dated
25.07.2022 (Annex.6) and 21.10.2022 (Annex.8) may be
declared declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, an objection
petition (Annex.1) may kindly be allowed.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems
appropriate and genuine may kindly be granted in favour
of the petitioners.
(iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioners".
(Downloaded on 04/04/2023 at 10:44:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/008004] (2 of 6) [CW-17606/2022]
2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner acquired the
disputed premises in the year 1974 from one Smt. Bhanwari Devi
W/o Shri Ramdeo as a partner of partnership firm. The petitioner
paid the monthly rent of the disputed premises to Smt. Bhanwari
Devi, and after her death, the monthly rent had been given to Shri
Ashok kumar (husband of the respondent).
2.1 The respondent has however, filed an eviction petition under
Section 9A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act of 2001'), stating therein that one plot bearing
no.6 at Paota 'C' Road, Jodhpur was let out on monthly rent to
Late Shri Sawai Singh, and that, the said Late Shri Sawai Singh
did not pay rent from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2015 (of total sum of
Rs. 21,600/- for 12 Months).
2.2. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal issued notice of the said
eviction petition to the said Late Shri Sawai Singh, but he failed to
get himself represented before the learned Tribunal; whereafter,
the learned Tribunal passed an ex parte eviction order on
20.10.2015 against Late Shri Sawai Singh. Subsequently, the
execution petition has been filed, and the learned Executing Court
vide order dated 16.09.2016 proceeded ex-parte against Late Shri
Sawai Singh.
2.3. The petitioner immediately moved an application under
Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 21 Rules 97 & 98
and Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC before the
learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur with a prayer that he may not be
evicted from the disputed premises in question, as no opportunity
(Downloaded on 04/04/2023 at 10:44:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/008004] (3 of 6) [CW-17606/2022]
of hearing, before passing of the eviction order, was afforded to
him as a tenant. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2016
passed ad-interim order and restrained the respondent from
evicting the petitioner. The petitioner moved another application
under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 for cross-examination of the
respondent, but the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
2.3.1. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition
bearing SBCWP No. 2296/2019, but the same was withdrawn on
02.05.2019 with liberty to raise all objections before the
appropriate forum.
2.4. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order
dated 25.07.2022 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the
petitioner under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 21
Rules 97 & 98 and Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of
CPC; against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
learned Appellant Rent Tribunal (Appellant Authority), which was
dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several
documents have been produced before the learned courts below,
showing the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties
in regard to the disputed premises in question, and that, the
petitioner has always been willing and ready to pay rent to the
landlord.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner has sent a legal notice as well as money order to the
respondent but she intentionally did not receive the due rent and
denied the tenant-landlord relationship between the parties
(Downloaded on 04/04/2023 at 10:44:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/008004] (4 of 6) [CW-17606/2022]
herein; therefore, the action of the respondent is highly illegal and
arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
respondent impleaded only Late Shri Sawai Singh as party in
eviction petition, despite knowing the fact that Late Shri Sawai
Singh was not using the disputes premises. Learned counsel
further submitted that the respondent, through her husband, has
received rent from the petitioner upto the year 2014, and
therefore, the respondent's denial in regard to tenant-landlord
relationship is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submitted
that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as
the impugned order passed by the learned Appellant Tribunal
clearly suffer from non-appreciation of the material and the
evidence on record.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there existed no tenant-
landlord relationship between the parties. He further submitted
that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has
paid the rent for the period from 01.05.2014 to 30.11.2016.
6.1. Learned counsel also submitted that though it is alleged by
the petitioner that the rent was received by Ashok Kumar
(Husband of the respondent), but the rent receipts for the period
from 1974 to 2014 clear reveal that the name of Late Shri Sawai
Singh was mentioned before the name of the petitioner, and
therefore, Late Shri Sawai Singh was the authorized person. Thus,
as per learned counsel, the eviction order, execution order as well
(Downloaded on 04/04/2023 at 10:44:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/008004] (5 of 6) [CW-17606/2022]
as impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunals below are
justified in law.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
8. This Court observes that the learned Tribunal below had
passed the ex-party eviction order on 20.10.2015 and the learned
Executing Court passed the order against Late Shri Sawai Singh.
This Court further observes that the petitioner acquired the
disputed premises in question in the year 1974 from Smt. Bhawari
Devi, and the said Bhawari Devi made Will in favour of the
respondent in the year of 2003, and that, it is discernible from the
record, being an admitted position that the petitioner paid the rent
of the disputed premises till April 2014. The respondent did not
know about the separation of petitioner and the said Late Shri
Sawai Singh, as the petitioner did not give any information to the
respondent about the said separation.
9. This Court also observes that Late Shri Sawai Singh and
Bhopal Singh were real brothers, and that, the Firm, namely, Bhati
Udhog is a partnership Firm, and not a single document has been
produced by the petitioner to show that Late Shri Sawai Singh was
not partner of the said Firm. This Court further observes that
various cheques and payment receipts clearly reveal the name of
Bhati Udhog together with Late Shri Sawai Singh.
10. The Court thus observes that the learned Tribunals below
have passed well reasoned speaking orders after looking into the
evidence and material on record, which in the opinion of this Court
do not warrant any interference.
(Downloaded on 04/04/2023 at 10:44:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/008004] (6 of 6) [CW-17606/2022]
11. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition
does not merit acceptance and the same is accordingly dismissed.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
