Shankerlal Sankhla vs Agarwal Panchayat
2023 Latest Caselaw 3628 Raj

[2023/RJJD/011667]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2816/2023

Shankerlal Sankhla S/o Shri Keshrimal, Aged About 73 Years, By Caste Sen, R/o H. No. 11, Agrawalon Ki Bagechi, Near Jaswant College, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus Agarwal Panchayat, Agrawalon Ka Nyati Nohra, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur. Through Its Secretary.

                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Rakesh Arora with
                                 Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. C.P. Soni

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 24/04/2023 Pronounced on 26/04/2023

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annex.8) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed".

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant, are that the respondent

filed an application under Section 9(A), (I) & Section 18 of the

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of

2001') before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

[2023/RJJD/011667] (2 of 6) [CW-2816/2023]

(Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan seeking eviction of the

petitioner/non-applicant from the residential premises in question,

as let out to the petitioner/non-applicant. Such eviction was

sought on the ground of non-payment of rent of the residential

premises in question by the petitioner/non-applicant. It was

further stated in the application that the house in question was let

out on 01.04.1999 on monthly rent of Rs.65/-; the rate of

monthly rent remained the same till 2003, but after applicability of

the Act of 2001, the petitioner/non-applicant was liable to pay the

enhanced rent of the premises in question, but he did not make

the payments, ever since the year 1999. Thereafter, the

respondent-applicant sent a legal notice to the petitioner/non-

applicant calling upon him to make payments of the arrears of

rent, but the same was not done.

2.1. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2018,

dismissed the eviction application filed by the respondent-

applicant, as not maintainable; against which the respondent-

applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent

Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was allowed vide the

impugned order dated 11.01.2023, and while quashing and setting

aside the said order dated 27.07.2018, the matter was remanded

back to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the main application

afresh within period of two months.

2.1.1 Vide the said impugned order, the learned Appellate Rent

Tribunal also allowed the application preferred by the respondent-

applicant under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of

the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record.

[2023/RJJD/011667] (3 of 6) [CW-2816/2023]

2.2. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated

11.01.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal,

Jodhpur Metropolitan, the present petition has been preferred by

the petitioner/non-applicant claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submitted

that the application moved by the respondent-applicant under

Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of the Act of 2001

for taking certain documents on record was allowed by the learned

Appellate Rent Tribunal, because no justifiable explanation was

forthcoming in the said application, which may warrant taking of

the documents, as mentioned in the application, on record. He

further submitted that the impugned order is also erroneous on

count of the fact that such documents were created subsequently,

and thus, taking the same on record, at the stage of appeal,

clearly runs contrary to law.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant also

submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed two

documents to be exhibited at the stage of appeal without even

providing any adequate opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner/non-applicant, and without considering the position of

law governing the field. In support of his submissions, learned

counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Bench in the cases of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Vs.

Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Ors. (2010) 8

SCC 423 and N. Kamalam (Dead) and Ors. Vs. Ayyasamy

and Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 503.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant further

submitted that the respondent-applicant filed the application

[2023/RJJD/011667] (4 of 6) [CW-2816/2023]

through Secretary i.e. Jaikishan Singhal, who was not an

authorized person to file such application, as recorded by the

learned Rent Tribunal in its order dated 27.07.2018; but despite

that, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide the impugned

order, remanded the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal,

while observing that the application is maintainable through the

Secretary i.e. Jaikishan Singhal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent-applicant, while opposing the aforesaid

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/non-applicant,

submitted that Jaikishan Singhal is the Secretary of the

respondent-applicant (Panchayat), and thus, he was duly

authorized to file the eviction application. He further submitted

that due to negligence on the part of the counsel representing the

respondent-applicant before the learned court below, the requisite

certificate could not be filed before the learned Rent Tribunal.

Therefore, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the

impugned order, while observing that the Secretary was

authorized to file the eviction application, which is justified in the

eye of law.

5.1. He also submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal

has rightly allowed the application for taking certain documents on

record, since the said documents were necessary for the

adjudication of the eviction application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant also submitted

that the petitioner/non-applicant is liable to be evicted from the

premises in question because he, in an unauthorized manner, is

holding the tenancy rights, without even paying the due rent,

[2023/RJJD/011667] (5 of 6) [CW-2816/2023]

running due for a long period of time. Therefore, the learned

Appellate Rent Tribunal has allowed the documents to be taken on

record, while remanding the matter back to the learned Rent

Tribunal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case along with judgments cited at the Bar.

8. This Court observes that the eviction application filed by

respondent-applicant before the learned Rent Tribunal was

dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the appeal filed by

respondent-applicant before learned Appellant Rent Tribunal was

allowed, while remanding the matter back to the learned Rent

Tribunal to decide the same afresh, and also while allowing the

application filed by the respondent-applicant under Order 41 Rule

27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of the Act of 2001 for taking

certain documents on record.

9. This Court further observes that the learned Appellate Rent

Tribunal observed in the impugned order dated 11.01.2023, that

as per the document dated 09.08.2010, the Election Officer i.e.

L.N. Jalani stated that the election stood concluded on

08.08.2010, and accordingly, issued a certificate to the Jaikishan

Singhal as authorized Secretary of the respondent-applicant

(Agarwal Panchayat). Therefore, it clearly reveals that the said

person was the authorized representative (Secretary) of the

respondent-applicant (Panchayat).

9.1. This Court further observes that the Cooperative

Department, Government of Rajasthan issued the registration

certificate dated 22.02.2018, wherein the name of Jaikishan

Singhal was mentioned as authorized representative (Secretary)

[2023/RJJD/011667] (6 of 6) [CW-2816/2023]

of the respondent-applicant (Agarwal Panchayat). Hence, the

learned Appellant Rent Tribunal was perfectly justified in passing

the impugned order.

10. This Court thus, in the given factual matrix, observes that

there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the

learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, more particularly, in light of the

fact that in case certain documents, in the opinion of the Court,

are relevant and necessary for fair and effective adjudication of

the matter, then the same are required to be taken into due

consideration.

11. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner/non-

applicant do not render any assistance to his case.

12. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so

as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.

13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

application stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)