Rajasthan High Court
Shivlal S/O Shri Purnaram vs Ramesh S/O Shri Rameshwar ... on 7 February, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:6391]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11559/2020
Shivlal S/o Shri Purnaram, R/o Madansar, Tehsil And District
Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner/Tenant
Versus
1. Ramesh S/o Shri Rameshwar, R/o Fathesara, At Present
R/o House No. 1G1, Housing Board, Jhunjhunu.
Respondent/Landlord
2. Ravindra S/o Shri Purnaram, R/o Madansar, Tehsil And
District Jhunjhunu.
----Proforma-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.L. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
07/02/2024
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 08.09.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal
(District Judge), Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the learned
Appellate Rent Tribunal") in Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020 (CIS
No.04/2020) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/tenant
(hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") under Order 26 Rule 9
CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001
(for short "the Act of 2001"), has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the original application
filed by the respondent No.1/landlord (for brevity "the landlord")
under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant
[2024:RJ-JP:6391] (2 of 4) [CW-11559/2020]
on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity as also
material alteration, came to be allowed by the Rent Tribunal,
Jhunjhunu vide final order dated 17.02.2020 whereagainst, the
tenant filed an appeal which is pending consideration in the
learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therein, the tenant moved an
application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the
Act of 2001 seeking appointment of the Site Commissioner which
has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide
order dated 08.09.2020, impugned herein.
Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the tenant
would submit that the landlord has concealed the fact that he also
has eight other shops under his possession. He further submits
that while dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Rent
Tribunal did not consider that the material alteration alleged to be
carried out by him, was of temporary nature and for adjudicating
upon this issue, appointment of the Site Commissioner was
imperative. Inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions
of Section 21 of the Act of 2001, he submits that the learned
Appellate Rent Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to take evidence
even at the appellate stage. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition be allowed, the order dated 08.09.2020 be quashed and
set aside and the application filed by him be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord opposed the
prayer.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Rent
Tribunal has held that the landlord has filed the eviction
application on 11.04.2012 seeking eviction of the tenant on the
[2024:RJ-JP:6391] (3 of 4) [CW-11559/2020]
grounds of material alteration as well as reasonable and bona fide
necessity wherein, the tenant appeared on 15.05.2012 and after
giving both the parties sufficient and full opportunity to lead
evidence, the rent application came to be decided on 31.08.2020,
i.e., eight years after presentation of the application. It has further
been observed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that there
was sufficient evidence led by both the parties on record to
adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the matter and there
was no occasion for appointment of Site Commissioner to collect
the evidence in favour of the tenant. Despite opportunity, learned
counsel for the tenant could not satisfy this Court that either the
order dated 08.09.2020 suffers from any illegality, perversity or
manifest error of law so as to warrant interference of this Court
under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the
Constitution of India or any justification for appointment of the
Site Commissioner to collect evidence in favour of the tenant for
which he was given ample opportunity by the learned Rent
Tribunal during course of trial.
Further, this Court has also gone through the contents of the
application filed the tenant and finds it to be bereft of even a
whisper of averment that any of the incidents, for which
appointment of the Site Commissioner is sought, has arisen post
decision dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. It
also does not reflect what prevented the tenant from moving
similar application before the learned Rent Tribunal at the
appropriate stage or what prevented him from leading evidence on
these aspects.
[2024:RJ-JP:6391] (4 of 4) [CW-11559/2020]
True that under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, learned
Appellate Rent Tribunal is empowered to take evidence; but, it is
only in exceptional circumstances and in its garb, the learned
Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be permitted to usurp the
jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal.
In view thereof, this Court is satisfied that the application
was filed by the tenant malafidely only to delay disposal of the
pending appeal and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed
with cost.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of
₹25,000/-. Out of the aforesaid cost, a sum of ₹15,000/- shall be
deposited by the tenant with the Litigants Welfare Fund and rest
₹10,000/- shall be paid to the landlord within a period of four
weeks from today.
Looking to the fact that the Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020
(CIS No.04/2020) is pending consideration for last more than
three years, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is directed to
decide it within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/106
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
