Ms. Nand Kumar And Ors vs Rent Tribunal Jodhpur And Ors ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 13019 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ms. Nand Kumar And Ors vs Rent Tribunal Jodhpur And Ors ... on 11 September, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:40676]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13305/2015

1. M.S. Nand Kumar Thathachariyar, Trustee Ramanujkot Private
Secular Trust, R/o Mudal Tharumaligai, 91 South Chitrai Trust
Srirangam Tiruchrapalli through its power of attorny holder
Shripati Mehta S/o Shri Gopal Singh Mehta, Trustee Ramanuj Kot
Private Secular Trust, Diwan House, Mehta Market, Jodhpur.
2. Smt. Saroj Mehta Trustee Ramanuj Kot Private Secular Trust,
Diwan House, Mehta Market, Jodhpur through her power of
attorny holder Shripati Mehta S/o Shri Gopal Singh Mehta,
Trustee Ramanuj Kot Private Secular Trust, Diwan House, Mehta
Market, Jodhpur.
3. Shripati Mehta S/o Shri Gopal Singh Mehta, Trustee Ramanuj
Kot Private Secular Trust, Diwan House, Mehta Market, Jodhpur
himself and through the power of attorny of holder of Sh. M.S.
Nandkumar Thathacharyar and Smt. Saroj Mehta.
                                                                      LANDLORD

                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.   The Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur
2.   The Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur.
3.    Manak Lal S/o Nemi Chand Parekh, R/o Shop No.31, behind
Diwan house, Mehta Market, Jodhpur.
                                                                        TENANT
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     None present
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Hargovind Chanda


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order 11/09/2025

1. The instant Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 05.01.2015

(Annexure-8) passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur

Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Appeal No.81/2011 and the order dated

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 07:00:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40676] (2 of 5) [CW-13305/2015]

17.05.2011 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal,

Jodhpur in Rent Petition No.9/2006. The learned Rent Tribunal rejected

the Rent Petition filed under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control

Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') seeking eviction

of the respondent (tenant) from the premises on the ground of default

in making payment of the rent. The order passed by the learned Rent

Tribunal has been affirmed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal

(Jodhpur Metropolitan).

2. The record of the case file indicates that the case as set up by the

petitioner- landlord before the learned Rent Tribunal was that the

petitioner- landlord let out a shop to the respondent- tenant on

01.06.1989. After coming into force, the Act of 2001, the petitioner-

landlord filed a Petition No.256/2004 before the learned Rent Tribunal

seeking revision in rent. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated

01.12.2004 revised rent of the premises to Rs.653/- per month upto

30.03.2003 and, thereafter, held the petitioner- landlord entitled for

revision in the same @ 5% per annum. According to the petitioner-

landlord, the respondent- tenant has defaulted in payment of rent for

more than four consecutive months. Even though, he was served with a

notice dated 15.03.2005 prior to filing of the Rent Petition before the

learned Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur.

3. The respondent- tenant denied all the averments made by the

petitioner- landlord in the Rent Petition and stated that he is regularly

depositing payable rent. In the reply, it was also contended that the

order dated 01.12.2004 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur in

Case No.256/2024 was ex parte order and an application for setting

aside of the ex parte order has already been filed before the learned

Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur.

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 07:00:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40676] (3 of 5) [CW-13305/2015]

4. The learned Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur thereafter framed the

following issue:-

Þ1- D;k vizkFkhZ us fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj dk fdjk;k pkj ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k dk "kks/; gks tkus ds ckotwn izkFkhZ dks vnk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pwd dh gS\ß

5. The learned Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur vide order dated

17.05.2011 decided the issue in favour of the respondent- tenant and

reached to a conclusion that the respondent- tenant has not defaulted

in making any payment of rent in terms of provisions of Section 9-A of

the Act of 2001. Learned Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur in its order

dated 17.05.2011 agreed with the argument of the respondent- tenant

that the order dated 01.12.2004 passed in Case No.256/2004 has yet

not attained the finality and, therefore, it cannot be said that the

respondent- tenant had defaulted in making any payment of the revised

rent with these observations, the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur

dismissed the Rent Petition No.9/2006. The order dated 17.05.2011 has

been affirmed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur

Metropolitan, Jodhpur.

6. Perused the record of the writ petition.

7. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Control Tribunal,

Jodhpur in the order dated 17.05.2011 in relation to issue No.1 reads as

under:-

"mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr vfHkopu o nLrkosth lk{; ls nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; HkwLokeh o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k gksuk Lohd`r rF; gSA ;g Hkh fufoZokfnr gS fd ;kfpdk la[;k 256@4 esa fnukad 01-12-2004 dks vf/kdj.k }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k ftlesa 673@& :i;s izfr ekg dh nj ls fnukad 31-03-2003 rd iqujhf{kr fdjk;s dh nj r; gks pqdh Fkh rFkk mlds i"pkr~ izfr o'kZ ikap izfr"kr dh nj ls c<+ksrjh djrs gq;s iqujhf{kr fdjk;k izkFkhZ dks izkIr gksus dk vf/kdkjh ekuk rFkk fnukad 18-03-2004 ls iqujhf{kr fdjk;k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ekukA blds laca/k esa izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ dks uksfVl izn"kZ 8 fn;k x;k rFkk 11]444@& :i;s cdk;k fdjk;s dh ekax dh xbZ ftldk tokc rhl fnol dh le;kof/k esa vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 21-03-2005 dks izn"kZ

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 07:00:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40676] (4 of 5) [CW-13305/2015]

10 fn;k x;k ftlesa mlds }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k fd ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh dks vikLr fd;ks tkus dh dk;Zokgh mlds }kjk dh xbZ gS mlds i"pkr~ gh iqujhf{kr fdjk;k jkf"k tek djk;s tkus dk mlds }kjk fuosnu fd;kA ;g fufoZokfnr gS fd vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fnukad 01-12-2004 dks ,d i{kh; vkns"k ikfjr fd;k x;k ftls vikLr fd;s tkus dk izkFkZuki= vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 03-01-2005 dks le;kof/k ds varxZr gh izLrqr dj fn;k x;k Fkk mlds i"pkr~ gh vizkFkhZ dks izkFkhZ }kjk izn"kZ 8 uksfVl cdk;k iqujhf{kr fdjk;s dh ekax dk fnukad 18-03-2005 dks Hkstk x;k vkSj mlds i"pkr~ gh fnukad 01-10-2005 dks ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlesa Hkh fnukad 22-05-2006 dh vknsf"kdk esa Li'V :i ls o.kZu vk;k gS fd fofo/k ;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k ds i"pkr~ gh bl izdj.k esa cgl lquh tk;sxhA bl izdkj fofo/k ;kfpdk la[;k 11@06 vkns"k 9 fu;e 13 fl-iz-la- dk fuiVkjk fnukad 14-02-2011 dks gqvkA ,slh fLFkfr esa fofo/k ;kfpdk la[;k 11@06 ds yafcr jgus ls fnukad 01-12-2004 dks fd;k x;k ,d i{kh; vkns"k vafre ugha gqvk FkkA vr% izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk izhfeP;ksj gS vkSj mlds ftl fnukad dks uksfVl dk tokc izkIr gqvk vkSj vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc uksfVl esa ,d i{kh; vkns"k vikLr djus dh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh tkudkjh nh xbZ vkSj bl dk;Zokgh ds yafcr jgus rd izkFkhZ dks iqujhf{kr fdjk;s dh jkf"k dk bartkj fdk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k rc izkFkhZ dks fdlh izdkj dk okndkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvkA blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gS fd iqujhf{kr fdjk;s dh jkf"k ds vfrfjDr lEiw.kZ cdk;k fdjk;s dh jkf"k vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks fujUrj vnk dh tk jgh FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vizkFkhZ fdjk;k vnk;xh esa rRij ugha jgkA ,slh fLFkfr esa esjs er esa izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gS fd vizkFkhZ us fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj dk fdjk;k pkj ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k dk izkFkhZ dks vnk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pwd dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ dks /kkjk 9 ¼,½ jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds vk/kkj fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj ls csn[ky djkus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA"

8. Indisputably, a tenant may be evicted from the premises if he has

neither payed not tendered the amount of rent due from him for four

months. In the present case, the petitioner- landlord alleged that the

respondent- tenant is not paying revised rent in conformity with the ex

parte order dated 01.12.2004 passed by the learned Rent Control

Tribunal, Jodhpur in Case No.256/2004. A bare perusal of the impugned

judgments so also the record of the case indicate that an application for

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 07:00:56 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40676] (5 of 5) [CW-13305/2015]

setting aside of the ex parte order dated 01.12.2004 was pending in

Case No.256/2004 further, the rent determined by the leaned Rent

Control Tribunal, Jodhpur in the aforesaid suit was not final. No rent

other than the revised rent under order dated 01.12.2004 was pending

in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. In this view of the matter, it

cannot be said that the respondent- tenant defaulted in depositing the

amount of rent or did not clear to pay or tender the amount of rent due

even after receipt of legal notice dated 15.03.2005. Thus, the

concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Rent Control Tribunal,

Jodhpur and the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal Jodhpur Metropolitan,

Jodhpur on the issue of default in making payment of rent by the

respondent- tenant, cannot be faulted with.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Mohd. Inam

v. Sajay Kumar Singhal & Ors" reported in (2020)7 SCC 327 was

pleased to hold that in the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to

analyse whether there is some palpable manifest error or some mistake

apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed

by Court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after

consideration of the facts and material on record.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of

this Court, there is no merit in the instant writ petition filed by the

petitioner- landlord.

11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

12. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 96-himanshu/-

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 07:00:56 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)