Smt. Gayatri Singh Tomar W/O Shri ... vs Kumari Bhawana D/O Late Shri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3498 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946/2020

Smt. Gayatri Singh Tomar W/o Shri Hakim Singh Tomar, Aged
About     53    Years,     Resident        Of    Apartment,          Plot    No.   B-22,
Susheelpura, Sodala, Jaipur And Choice Beauty Parlar, Shop As
Situated At Plot No.177, Kanwar Nagar, Rajamal Ka Talab, Jaipur
(Raj.).
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
Kumari Bhawana D/o Late Shri Khattumal Varyani, Resident Of
Plot No. 177, Kanwar Nagar, Rajamal Ka Talab, Jaipur (Raj.), At
Present Address - Marfat Meena Fashions, Shop No. 39, Com-
mercial Street, Bangalore.
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma on behalf of Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

14/08/2023

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

assailing the judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by learned

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.91/2019 affirming the

judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in Original Application

No.714/2008, whereby the Rent Tribunal determined the rent and

ordered the non-applicant-tenant to handover the possession of

the suit premises to the applicant-landlord within a period of six

months.

Counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submits that the

orders of the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal are

(2 of 2) [CW-2946/2020]

not sustainable because both the Courts have not taken into

consideration the matter of the suspect that the applicant is not

landlord and under Sections 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control

Act, 2001, only the landlord can file an application for eviction.

Counsel further submits that the findings of the Tribunal below are

contrary to the evidence available on record.

After arguing at some length, counsel for the petitioner also

submits that the petitioner-tenant has already vacated the rented

premises in compliance of the order of the Tribunal and he also

submits that the petitioner is not in touch with him since long.

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioner and perused the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as

well as the Appellate Tribunal.

There are concurrent findings of both the Rent Tribunal as

well as Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner has failed to point out the

perversity and illegality in the orders passed by the Tribunals.

Since, there is no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the

Tribunal and so also the fact that the petitioner has already va-

cated the premises, hence, the present writ petition stands dis-

missed and the pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed

of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Seema/252

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)