Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Praveen Malhotra vs Mohan Singh (2023:Rj-Jd:27710) on 2 September, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:27710]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2035/2021

Praveen Malhotra S/o Late Jagdish Rai Malhotra, Aged About 50 Years, Malhotra Education Store, 18, Gole Bazar, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Mohan Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, By Caste Saini, Resident Of 47-F, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Baldev Singh S/o Fakiriya Ram, By Caste Saini, Resident Of 47-F, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Resham Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, By Caste Saini, Resident Of 47-F, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.

4. Anuj Malhotra S/o Late Jagdish Rai Malhotra, Malhotra Store, 18, Gole Bazar, Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Vishan Das Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. G.J. Gupta



                HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                           Order

02/09/2023

(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully stayed that the present petition for writ may kindly be allowed and an order impugned dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure-6) passed the learned execution court in execution case No.42/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

(2) The facts of the case are that a godown measuring 20X40

sq. ft., situated at 160, Gol Bazar (Tractor Market),

[2023:RJ-JD:27710] (2 of 6) [CW-2035/2021]

Sriganganagar, owned by one Satinder Singh was let out to Shri

Jagdish Rai, who was the father of the petitioner and the rent was

fixed @ Rs.150/- per month. In the yer 2008, the respondent

Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act of 2001') on the ground of bonafide need stating that on

22.03.2005, the rented permises was purchased by them from

Satinder Singh and each of them is having 1/3 share in the rented

premises. After service upon the petitioner, the petitioner filed

reply to the application denying the facts mentioned in the

application.

(3) After hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') allowed the application

vide order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1) while directing as under:-

"(1) vthZnkjx.k izR;FkhZx.k ls vthZ ds en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s"kqnk ifjlk] 160 xksy cktkj (V`SDVj ekfdZV) Jhxaxkuxj] tks rhu eaftyk cuh gqbZ gS] Hkwfery o izFkery ds chp esa ,d fe;keh cuh gqbZ gS] Hkwfery ds mRrjh fgLls ls ,d dejk cuk gqvk gS tks mRrjeq[kh gS] dks NksMdj "ks'k Hkwfery o blds mij cuh gqbZ lEiw.kZ fe;kuh dks NksMdj lkbZt 20 xq.kk 40 QqV gS] dk [kkyh dCtk jktLFkku fdj;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e]2001 dh /kkjk 15(8) ds ijUrqd ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj vkns"k dh fnukad ls N% ekg i"pkr izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

(2) izR;FkhZx.k }kjk fdjk;s"kqnk ifjlj [kkyh dj vkns"k dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekg esa dCtk vthZnkjx.k dks laHkyk;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vthZnkjx.k vthZ izLrqfr fnukad ls dCtk laHkyk;s tkus rfd fdjk;k crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh izR;FkhZ ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA

(3) ;fn izR;FkhZx.k dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ds izek.k i= tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekl ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj ifjlj [kkyh ugha djrs gS] rks vthZnkjx.k dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ds izek.k&i= ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu xqus dh nj ls fu'dklu ifjlj rd fdjk;k crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh vfrfjDr U;k; "kqYd fu;ekuqlkj vnk dj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA rnuqlkj dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ,oa olwyh izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tkosA "

[2023:RJ-JD:27710] (3 of 6) [CW-2035/2021]

(4) Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), which came to

be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2019

(Annex.2).

(5) Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated

12.02.2019 (Annex.2), the petitioner preferred SBCWP

No.3495/2019 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated

23.01.2020, disposed of the writ petition while granting some time

for vacating the premises in dispute and also directed the

petitioner to pay mesne profit @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the

respondent Nos.1 to 3, w.e.f. February, 2020 till the date of

vacation of the premises in dispute.

(6) The petitioner, in terms of the said judgment, had already

paid arrears of rent prior to February, 2020 @ Rs.1500/- per

month and since February, 2020, the petitioner deposited

Rs.4,000/- per month in the bank account as provided by the

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(7) Thereafter, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application for

execution of the order dated 20.07.2016 (Annex.1) before the

learned Tribunal to which the petitioner filed reply.

(8) The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned

Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2021 (Annex.6) while issuing

warrant for recovery of possession. The petitioner being aggrieved

of the order dated 16.01.2021, has preferred the present writ

petition.

[2023:RJ-JD:27710] (4 of 6) [CW-2035/2021]

(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has already deposited the entire arrears of rent up to January,

2020 and that he has also deposited enhanced mesne profit @

Rs.4,000/- per month pursuant to the direction of this Court dated

23.01.2020 (Annex.3). Hence, the learned Tribunal has failed to

appreciate that as the petitioner has complied with the direction of

this Court, there was no requirement of issuing warrant for

recovery of possession against the petitioner.

(10) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this

Court has fixed the mesne profit @ Rs.4,000/- per month from

February, 2020, thus, the petitioner was not required to pay three

times rent to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in light of the direction of

the Rent Tribunal dated 20.04.2016 and hence, the learned

Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order dated

16.01.2021 (Annex.6).

(11) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

mesne profit, as ordered by the learned Tribunal vide order dated

20.04.2016 (Annex.1) under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the

Act of 2001 is not required to be complied with looking to the fact

that by order dated 23.01.2020 (Annex.3), this Court had already

ordered the petitioner to pay the mesne profit and thus, the

impugned order dated 16.01.2021 (Annex.6) deserves to be

quashed and aside.

(12) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3

submits that the petitioner has not complied with the directions

passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1),

whereby the petitioner was specifically directed to pay rent @

three times if the petitioner does not vacate the premises

[2023:RJ-JD:27710] (5 of 6) [CW-2035/2021]

in-dispute and thus, the learned court below has rightly passed

the order dated 16.1.2021.

(13) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(14) This is an admitted fact that the order dated 20.04.2016

(Annex.1) is still in force as the same was not quashed and set

aside by the Appellate Tribunal or by this Court and this Court

finds that the petitioner withdrew the earlier S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3495/2019 while praying for some time to be granted

to vacate the premises in-dispute and also agreed to pay

enhanced mesne profit to the respondent upon which this Court

passed the order dated 23.1.2020 and the same is reproduced

hereunder :-

"After attempting to make submissions for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for extra time to vacate the premises and submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay enhanced mesne profit.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to allow time to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises by 30th June, 2021, and allow mesne profit to the respondent until the petitioner vacates the suit premises @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the month of February, 2020 till 30th June, 2021.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The stay application is also dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the suit premises by 30th June, 2021 on the following conditions:-

"(i) the petitioner shall submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the Rent Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today to the effect that on or before 30th June, 2021, he shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent- landlord. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the premises nor to make any

[2023:RJ-JD:27710] (6 of 6) [CW-2035/2021]

alternation and not to assign/sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance.

(ii) the petitioner shall deposit the arrears within a period of four weeks, if any, of the rent/mesne profit and of the decreetal amount and shall further pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01st February, 2020 or deposit the same in the saving bank account of the respondent-landlord month by month on or before 15th day of the next month. The respondent-landlord or learned counsel for the respondent will give the details of the bank account, in which, the arrears of rent or mesne profit/month to month mesne profit will be deposited, to the petitioner or counsel for the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

(iii) it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions or violates any terms of the undertaking, then it will be open for the respondent-landlord to get the recovery certificate executed forthwith in accordance with law. No costs."

(16) Hence, having regard to the above facts and circumstances,

this Court finds that the petitioner is an under obligation to make

necessary compliance of the order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1),

passed by the Rent Tribunal.