Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Curious Campus Sansthan vs Prabhat Jain (2023:Rj-Jd:42488) on 6 December, 2023
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:42488]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14781/2023
Curious Campus Sansthan, 6 A, Mahaveer Colony, Ashok Nagar,
Udaipur (Rajasthan) Through Founder Secretary Abhay Jain S/o
Late Madan Raj Jain, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 102, Paark View
Apartment, Near Baskin Robbins Ice-Cream Parlor, Sukhadia
Circle, Panchwati, New Fatehpura, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Prabhat Jain S/o Late Basanti Lal Jain, Aged About 63
Years, R/o 6-A, Mahaveer Colony, Ashok Nagar, Main
Road, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Smt. Anila Jain W/o Abhay Jain, R/o Flat No. 707, Sun
Tower, Rudra Vihar, Keshav Nagar, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
06/12/2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the
following prayers:-
"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
the writ petition filed by the present petitioner may kindly
be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or
direction:-
(i) the order/judgment dated 31.08.2023 (Annex-5)
may kindly be quashed and set aside and application
(Annexure/3), filed by the applicant/petitioner may kindly
be allowed as such.
(ii) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and
[2023:RJ-JD:42488] (2 of 5) [CW-14781/2023]
circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour
of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an
application before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, with an averment
that the applicant/respondent No.1 is the owner of the premises in
question. The said premises was given on rent to respondent No.2
on 15.01.2002 by father of the respondent No.1 Late Shri
Basantilal Jain for Rs.8,500/- per month.
3. Father of respondent No.1-Shri Basanti Lal Jain died on
07.02.2007 and before his death, he executed a will on
06.08.2006 for the said premises according to which, ground floor
of the premises was given to his wife. Soon after the death of her
wife, eastern portion of the house was given to the brother of
respondent No.1 and western part of the premises was given to
the applicant/respondent No.2 on rent. The learned trial court
issued notices to respondent No.2 in this regard but the
respondent No.2 preferred not to appear before the learned
tribunal. Thus, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against
respondent No.2.
4. The applicant/petitioner filed an application for impleading
him as a party respondent wherein he clearly submitted that the
applicant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 filed the
application before rent tribunal in collusion with each other,
whereas, the applicant/petitioner is in possession of the premises
in question and Curious Campus Sansthan is running a school in
the said premises. The petitioner further submitted that the
respondent No.2 was served on her address and not on the rented
premises. The respondent No.1 filed reply to the application and
[2023:RJ-JD:42488] (3 of 5) [CW-14781/2023]
denied the averments made in the application filed under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC.
5. The learned trial court heard the arguments on the
application and rejected the application vide order dated
31.08.2023 (Annexure-5). Being aggrieve thereof, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:-
(a) The learned Tribunal has relied upon the rent agreement
entered between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 despite the fact
that the said agreement is false and fabricated.
(b) The respondents Nos.1 and 2 in collusion, filed the eviction
application in order to evict the petitioner from the premises in
question, as the possession of the same is with the petitioner.
(c) The father of the applicant/respondent No.1, by way of an
oral agreement, gave possession of the said premises in question
to the petitioner without any rent for running the charitable
sansthan for the welfare of the children and therefore, the
petitioner is required to be impleaded as party respondent.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that:-
(a) Petitioner in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
before the tribunal has not made any averments that the premises
in dispute were given to the petitioner-sansthan by the father of
respondent No.1 for the purpose of running the sansthan as per
an oral agreement and in the writ petition the said averment has
been made.
(b) The registration of the petitioner-sansthan has been made on
29.02.2008 (Annex.R/5) and the father of respondent No.1
[2023:RJ-JD:42488] (4 of 5) [CW-14781/2023]
expired on 07.02.2007 (Annex.R/4), thus, the petitioner's
contentions that the premises in dispute were given on rent basis
to the petitioner by father of respondent No.1, is absolutely false
and frivolous because father of respondent No.1 was expired way
back in the year 2007 and the sansthan could be run only after its
registration which has been duly made in the year, 2008.
(c) It is writ large the premises were given on rent to the
respondent No.2, which is evident from a perusal of the
agreement entered between the parties and thus, the petitioner
could not be said to be a necessary party in the litigation pending
before the Rent Tribunal.
(d) The petitioner has failed to place on record any documents in
order to demonstrate that the premises in dispute were given on
rent to the petitioner for the purpose of running the petitioner
Sansthan.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
material available no record.
9. The Rent Tribunal, in the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annex.-5),
has categorically observed that the application under Order 1 Rule
10 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-Sansthan through the
Secretary-Abhay Jain, who is the husband of respondent No.2-
Anila Jain and further that the petitioner/applicant has failed to
show the prejudice that would be caused as he has failed to
demonstrate the details in order to show that the premises in
dispute was given away on rent in favour of the petitioner by the
father of the respondent No.1. The learned tribunal has also
observed that the petitioner has failed to show the date when the
[2023:RJ-JD:42488] (5 of 5) [CW-14781/2023]
tenancy was established with the applicant-petitioner and also the
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent owner.
10. This Court finds that the onus of proving the relationship of
tenant and landlord was upon the shoulder of the petitioner but
the petitioner is unable to prove the same and has further failed to
demonstrate before this Court that the petitioner is a necessary
party for the adjudication of the application filed before the rent
tribunal and the prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner,
if not impleaded as a party in the application pending before the
tribunal as nothing has been placed on record to fortify the
submission that the premises in dispute was given to the
petitioner on rent basis by the father of the respondent No.1.
11. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and no interference is
called for in the order dated 31.08.2023 (Annex.-5) passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent
Tribunal), Udaipur. Stay application as well as all other pending
applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/257-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
