Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Viman Hospitility And Entertainment ... vs Satyen Parihar (2025:Rj-Jd:21860) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:21860]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11256/2024
Viman Hospitility And Entertainment Private Limited, Through Its
Director Vikas Lohiya Son Of Shri Poonamchand Lohiya, Aged 48
Years, Resident Of A-202, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) And
Address 17, Kalpataru Shopping Center Scheme, Sector E,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Satyen Parihar S/o Late Shri Dharmveer Parihar, Karta
Dharmveer Satyen Parihar (Huf), Resident Of 157-B, Polo
Second, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11289/2024
Viman Hospitility And Entertainment Private Limited, Through Its
Director Vikas Lohiya Son Of Shri Poonamchand Lohiya, Aged 48
Years, Resident Of A-202, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) And
Address 18, Kalpataru Shopping Center Scheme, Sector E,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Yatin Parihar S/o Shri Satyen Parihar, Karta Yatin Parihar (Huf),
Resident Of 157-B, Polo Second, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/05/2025
1. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned
Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned
Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal has refused to frame the
issues.
[2025:RJ-JD:21860] (2 of 4) [CW-11256/2024]
2. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when
there is contentious issues between the rival parties in relation to
a dispute, it is necessary for the learned Tribunal to frame the
issues or points of determination as contemplated under Order
XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, decide
the suit.
3. He submitted that the question(s) involved in the present
petitions has already been set at rest by the order dated
02.12.2021, in the case of Bhanwarlal Vs. Kalyanmal Daga : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.16620/2021.
4. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondent - landlord
could not dispute the aforesaid position and the fact that there are
contentious issues between the parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of
the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhanwarlal
(supra):-
"12. In the opinion of this Court, unless the
averments in the petition or plaint are admitted
by the defendant, the Tribunal or the Court
must settle the issues or to frame point of
determination, being guided, if not bound by
the spirit of Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code.
13. Laying down points of determination or
settling/framing of the issues, as a matter of
fact, smoothens and facilitates the trial and
ultimately results in efficient and effectual
disposed of the case.
14. Framing of issues on the contrary, helps
the Court in keeping the evidence and
[2025:RJ-JD:21860] (3 of 4) [CW-11256/2024]
arguments of the parties within the periphery of
the pleadings. It also facilitates in focussing on
the core issues and formulating/paraphrasing
the reasoning and the grounds for the
conclusion, the Court or the Tribunal would
reach.
15. In the opinion of this Court the Tribunal
has misdirected itself by observing that there is
only one ground of eviction, in order to
conclude that issues are not required to be
framed. There is a vast difference between
ground of eviction and questions to be
determined. There may be cases where the
eviction is sought on only one ground but based
on the pleadings of the parties, there may be a
score of questions/points to be determined. The
Courts should not get confused between the
'ground' and 'issue' - they should bear in mind
the distinction between these two.
16. True it is, that the act of 2001 speaks of
summary procedure. But in the name of
summary procedure, the principles of natural
justice or other salutary principles
quintessential for effective adjudication of a
case/dispute, that are fundamental to the rule
of law, cannot be given a go-bye, if
circumstances of a case so warrants.
17. In light of what has been stated/discussed
hereinabove, according to this Court, order
impugned dated 28.07.2021 is unsustainable
and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The
same is hereby done.
18. In order to ensure that the proceedings of
the Tribunal are not unnecessarily prolonged,
both the parties are directed to submit
proposed issues or points of determination
[2025:RJ-JD:21860] (4 of 4) [CW-11256/2024]
before the Rent Tribunal on the next date of
hearing, which is reported to be 08.12.2021.
19. The Tribunal shall consider the pleadings
of the parties and issues proposed by the rival
parties and settle the same (issue or point of
determination), as is deemed appropriate and
expedient in order to decide the real
controversy between the parties and to decide
the petition in accordance with law."
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the submissions made by both the parties, the writ
petitions are allowed.
8. The orders dated 15.03.2024 impugned in both the writ
petitions are hereby quashed.
9. The Tribunal is directed to frame the issues or points of
determination on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and
thereafter, proceed to decide the cases in accordance with law.
10. The stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
459 and 460-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
