Rajasthan High Court

State Of Raj And Ors vs Mahanrt Shri Vishnu Prasad And Anr on 22 November, 2023

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2023:RJ-JP:35192]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11602/2018

1. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Sikar.
2. District Education Officer (Secondary), Sikar.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. Sir Madhav Government Upper Primary School, Sikar
Rajasthan Through Its Headmaster.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mahant Shri Vishnu Prasad Son Of Late Mahant Rajendra
Prasad, Resident Of Sitala Mandir Chouk Near Shri Kalyan
Mandir Sikar.
2. Murti Mandir Shri Kalyan Ji Through Mahant Shri Vishnu
Prasad Son Of Late Mahant Rajendra Prasad, Resident Of
Sitala Mandir Chouk Near Shri Kalyan Mandir Sikar.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

Reserved On ::: October 20, 2023
Pronounced On ::: November 22, 2023

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners challenging the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by

the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sikar, in Appeal No.19/2013,

whereby the appeal was dismissed against the judgment

dated 17.7.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, in Eviction

Application No.16/2010.

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (2 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

2. The brief facts of the case borne out from the

pleadings are that an eviction application under section 9 of

the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') was

filed by the respondents-landlords before the Rent Tribunal,

Sikar for eviction of the petitioners-tenants on the ground of

personal and bonafide necessity. The Rent Tribunal, Sikar

after considering the pleadings and the evidence, allowed the

eviction application filed by the respondents-landlords vide

order dated 17.7.2013 and ordered the petitioners- tenants

to vacate the premises in question and to hand over the

possession to the applicants-landlords. It was further

observed that the applicants shall be entitled to recover the

amount of rent @ Rs.107/- per month w.e.f. 16.6.1954. The

operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

"ifj.kker%
vthZnkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk
fo:) izR;FkhZx.k ckcr~ csn[kyh fdjk;k ifjlj gsrq fuEu
izdkj ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS fd %&

¼1½ fd os vkt fnukad ls Ng ekg ds vUnj&vUnj fookfnr
ifjlj ftldk lEiw.kZ fooj.k ;kfpdk ds in la[;k&3 esa fn;k
x;k gS] dk "kkafriwoZd o [kkyh dCtk lgh gkyr esa vizkFkhZx.k
dks lqiqnZ dj nsA

¼2½ vkosndx.k vukosndx.k ls fnukad 16-06-1954 dks
r;"kqnk fdjk;k 107@& :i;s mi;ksx miHkksx ds e/;orhZ
ykHk ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksaxs] ftlij izR;sd
o'kZ fdjk;k"kqnk ifjlj [kkyh gksus rd ikap izfr"kr dh
vfHko`f) gksrh jgsxhA

¼3½ fd ;fn vkt fofu"p; dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekg ds
vUnj&vUnj vizkFkhZx.k fookfnr fdjk;s"kqnk ifjlj dks [kkyh
ugha djrs gSa rks pwafd vizkFkhZx.k us ifjlj tks fookfnr ifjlj
gS] tks okf.kfT;d iz;kstu ds fy;s fdjk;s ij fn;k ekuk tkrk

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (3 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

gS vkSj jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk&20
¼3½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fdjk;k fnukad 16-06-1954 dks
r;"kqnk fdjk;k 107@& :i;s ekfld fdjk;s esa ikap izfr"kr
vfHko`f) tksMd+ j ekfld fdjk;s ds rhu xqus dh nj ls var%
dkyhu ykHk crkSj mi;ksx miHkksx izkFkhZx.k dks vnk djuk
gksxkA

¼4½ fd fofu"p; dh ,d izfr vukosndx.k dks fu%"kqYd
miyC/k djkbZ tkosA

¼5½ i{kdkjku dh vihysV vf/kdj.k ds le{k is"k gksus ds
fy;s fnukad 21-09-2013 fu;r dh tkrh gSA"

3. The petitioners-tenants preferred an appeal against

the judgment dated 17.7.2013 before the Rent Appellate

Tribunal, Sikar, which was registered as Appeal No.19/2013.

The appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants was dismissed

vide order dated 12.9.2017 affirming the order dated

17.7.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sikar.

4. Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the respondents/ applicants have

played fraud because the property in question is a trust

property, whereas the eviction application has been filed in a

personal capacity of applicants to grab the property. Counsel

for the petitioners also submitted that the findings recorded

by both the Tribunals are wholly contrary to the facts and law.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that the respondents- applicants never claimed the property

in question as a personal property. The title of the eviction

application itself clearly speaks that the eviction application

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (4 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

has been filed by Murti Mandir Kalyanji through Mehant

Rajendra Prasad. Counsel for the respondents further

submitted that he has also filed an affidavit before this Court

that he is not claiming the property in question as a personal

property and the said property will be used as a property of

the 'Mandir' for day-to-day use for the activities connected

with the temple. He also submitted that the findings given by

both the Tribunals do not suffer from any illegality or

perversity. He further submitted that in a writ jurisdiction,

this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence.

6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel

appearing for both the parties.

7. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised an

issue that the respondents- applicants are playing fraud by

filing the eviction application in personal capacity so as to

grab the property in question.

8. From the bare perusal of the orders and the title of

the case so also the affidavit submitted by counsel appearing

for the respondents-applicants wherein it has been

specifically stated that the respondents-applicants are and

will never claim the property in question as a personal

property and it shall remain as a property of the temple Shri

Kalyanji, this Court finds no substance in the arguments of

the counsel for the petitioners.

[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (5 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

Further, on perusal of the rent agreement between

the parties i.e. Ex.14 it is clear that the Headmaster of Sir

Madhav Government Upper Primary School, Sikar, executed a

rent deed as a tenant with Mathura Prasad Mehant Mandir

Kalyanji, Sikar, as a landlord. In view of the fact that the rent

deed was executed with Mehant of Mandir Kalyanji, Sikar and

the eviction application has also been filed by Murti Mandir

Kalyanji through its Mehant, it cannot be said that the

respondents-applicants have filed the eviction application in

their personal capacity.

9. Counsel appearing for the petitioners also

submitted that the findings arrived at by both the Tribunals

are contrary to the facts. He has not pointed out any

particular finding to be contrary to the fact but has made a

submission in general without making any reference to any

particular evidence or fact on record.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdev

Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3572,

has observed as under:-

"the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an

[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (6 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court Or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision".

11. Similar principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Sadhna Lodh V. National

Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC

524 and Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhsh Chandra Bhatia,

reported in (2018) 2 SCC 87.

12. In the case of Jain Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Reported in (2010) 9 SCC

385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"12. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Counsel.

"13. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence

[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (7 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognized constraints. It can not be exercised like a `bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re- appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice."

[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (8 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

13. In another case of Mahant Ram Prakashdas

Swami Vs. Assistant Commissioner (I), & Anr. (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1442/2019), decided on 2 nd May,

2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as

under:-

"This Court finds that the Assistant Commissioner was required to consider as whether nomination, as per constitution, had taken place or not. The Assistant Commissioner was also having two separate applications by the aggrieved persons i.e. by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and after considering the rival claims of the parties and in compliance of the amended constitution, if findings have been recorded, it would not be possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

14. In view of the proposition given in the above

referred judgments and without there-being any specific

submission of the counsel for the petitioners for any finding

arrived at by both the Tribunals, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in the findings of both the Tribunals.

15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is

of the view that the orders passed by the both the Tribunals

do not warrant any interference and accordingly the writ

petition is dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JP:35192] (9 of 9) [CW-11602/2018]

16. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the

stay application and pending applications, if any, also stand