Ashok Kumar vs Lrs Of Shri Ramesh Chandra Kakani
2023 Latest Caselaw 2845 Raj

[2023/RJJD/009220]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1357/2020

Ashok Kumar S/o Babulal Acharya, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Bus Stand, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Lrs Of Shri Ramesh Chandra Kakani, S/o Rooplal Kakani, Through-

2. Lakshmi Devi W/o Late Ramesh Chandra Kakani, 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

3. Rachna D/o Late Ramesh Chandra Kakani, 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

4. Swati D/o Late Ramesh Chandra Kakani, 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

5. Shweta D/o Late Ramesh Chandra Kakani, 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

6. Akshay Kedar S/o Ramesh Chandra Kakani, 102/5, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

7. Shivlal S/o Rooplal Kakani, Gangrar, At Present Residing At Near 23/27, Cricket Stadium, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

8. Gopal S/o Rooplal Kakani, Gangrar At Present Residing At Near 23/2, Cricket Stadium, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

9. Chiranjilal Mutbanna S/o Late Gordhanlal Mahajan (Kakani), Gangrar, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, At Present Residing Near Georaj Hospital, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Thanvi For Respondents : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mohan Choudhary Mr. Falgun Buch a/w Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 06/04/2023 Pronounced on 10/04/2023

[2023/RJJD/009220] (2 of 6) [CW-1357/2020]

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the

following reliefs:-

"I. The order impugned dated 23.07.2019 (Annex.6) may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent the learned Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to pay the rent.

II. The order impugned dated 16.12.2019 (Annex.10) may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside.

III. The judgment and decree impugned dated 15.02.2019 (Annex.-4) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be stayed.

IV. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed.

V. The respondents may be restrained not to take any coercive action action the petitioner and further, be restrained not to initiate the execution of the decree dated 15.02.2019.

VI. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted.

VII. Cost of the writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. The dispute in question pertains to the payment of

outstanding rental dues with respect to a shop premises,

situated near the bus stand of Village-Gangrar, District-

Chittorgarh.

3. The principal order assailed by way of the present petition

is the order, dated 15.02.2019, passed by the Additional Civil

Judge No.1, Chittorgarh whereby the present petitioner-Ashok

Kumar was directed to evict the shop premises in question and

handover the possession thereof to the respondents no.1 to 3,

[2023/RJJD/009220] (3 of 6) [CW-1357/2020]

and make payment of outstanding rental dues towards

monthly rent, of Rs. 700/- for a period of 36 months prior to

institution of suit, amounting to Rs. 25,200/- at a monthly

interest rate of Rs.1/- per Rs.100, amounting to an additional

Rs. 2,400/- i.e. a total of Rs. 27,600/- and an amount of Rs.

1,400/- towards use and occupation of the shop premises in

question, to respondents no. 1 to 3.

4. Against such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal,

being Civil Appeal No. 02/2019, before the learned District

Judge, Chittorgarh; vide impugned order dated 23.07.2019,

the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh gave

certain directions to the petitioner to the effect, amongst

others, that he furnish an undertaking that within a period of

15 days from that date, he will make payment of Rs. 25,200/-

towards outstanding rental dues to the respondents no. 1 to 3,

within a period of one month from the date of such order.

5. And against said the order, the petitioner preferred a

review, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated

16.12.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned

orders on the following grounds:-

6.1 That the rental agreement (at Annex.1) was entered into

between the petitioner and the respondent no.4, and that a

perusal of the same would reveal manipulation in the form of

over-writing, of the name of respondent no.2 over that of

respondent no.4. And that, the petitioner has made due

[2023/RJJD/009220] (4 of 6) [CW-1357/2020]

payments towards rent to the respondent no.4, rent receipts of

which are placed at Annex.-2, and that the respondents 1 to 3

do not have a landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner.

6.2 And that, the impugned orders are bad in the eye of the

law as the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury as a

consequence of having to repay the amount towards rental

dues, that which he has already been duly paid by him to

respondent no.4.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents no. 1 to 3 opposed the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned

orders have been rightly passed, after taking into due

consideration the overall facts and circumstances and the

evidences placed on the record.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 further

submitted that the suit, filed for eviction and seeking arrears of

rent of the shop premises in question by respondents no. 1 to

3, was decreed in their favour.

8.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has

not made a full and proper representation of the facts

surrounding the case, and that the respondent no. 4 was in

fact deposed as a defence witness, before the learned Trial

Court, and was not party to such suit.

8.2 Furthermore, that at the appellate stage, the respondent

no.4 filed a leave to appeal before the learned Appellate Court,

which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2019.

[2023/RJJD/009220] (5 of 6) [CW-1357/2020]

8.3 That the respondent no.4 filed an application under Order

I Rule 10 C.P.C. on 18.12.2019, only after the interim order

directing maintenance of status quo was passed, and the

review petition was dismissed by the learned Court below.

8.4 And that the petitioner is on the one hand questioning the

sanctity of the rental agreement by alleging interpolation and

on the other hand alleging that he has made the due payments

towards rent, to the respondent no.4 in pursuance of such rent

agreement, of the shop premises in question.

9. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the

record of the case.

10. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court, vide

impugned order dated 15.02.2019, framed certain issues and

answered the same in the following manner;

10.1 That the petitioner was a tenant of the shop premises in

question, the monthly rent of which was Rs. 700/-, that the

payment towards the monthly rent by the petitioner was

pending since 01.08.2006, and that the same stood lawfully

terminated on 30.09.2009.

11. In arriving at such conclusion, the learned Trial Court held

that the rent receipts produced on behalf of the petitioner, by

respondent no.4, a defence witness in the trial below, was not

believable as the same appeared to be concocted in light of the

testimony rendered by the respondents no. 1 to 3 which

revealed that their father had in fact rented the shop premises

in question to the petitioner. And that a diary in this regard

[2023/RJJD/009220] (6 of 6) [CW-1357/2020]

was maintained by the father of the respondents no. 1 to 3, of

the accounts and other details regarding payments towards

rent.

12. This Court also observes that the respondent no. 4 was

presented as a defence witness and was not arrayed as a party

in the suit before the learned Trial Court.

13. In light of the facts noticed hereinabove, this Court finds

that the learned Courts below have rightly proceeded in

passing the impugned orders, directing the petitioner to make

the necessary payments towards the outstanding dues towards

rent of the shop premises in question.

14. The present petition is thus without merit, and does not

warrant the interference of this Court, and is therefore

dismissed. It is however, directed that the learned trial Court

shall decide the suit expeditiously strictly in accordance with

law. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)