[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banshidhar vs Arya Samaj (2026:Rj-Jd:12567) on 13 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:12567]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4664/2026
Banshidhar S/o Late Shri Narayan Das, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Lakshmipura, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Arya Samaj, Barmer, Through Its President Mahendra Khatri, S/o
Lekhraj, Resident Of Azad Chowk, Barmer, Tehsil And District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Sharda with Mr. Siddharth
Karwasra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
13/03/2026
1. The present writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner-judgment
debtor assailing the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned
Rent Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge), Barmer in Execution Case
No.04/2023 (Arya Samaj vs. Banshidhar), to the extent whereby,
application submitted by the petitioner under Section 47 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree
dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal was limited to
eviction and revision of rent and did not contain any executable
direction for recovery of arrears of rent. It is contended that the
Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:51:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12567] (2 of 6) [CW-4664/2026]
recovery of alleged arrears which were neither quantified nor
expressly decreed. It is further urged that since possession of the
premises was already handed over in November, 2023, the
execution proceedings ought not to have been continued
thereafter.
4. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of
the Allahabad High Court in Hiralal Patni vs. Sri Kali Nath
reported in AIR 1955 All 569.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder
while supporting impugned order, submits that certificate/decree
dated 13.04.2011 clearly determines the liability of the petitioner
by revising the rent and specifying the date from which such
revised rent becomes payable. It is contended that consequential
monetary liability is, therefore, recoverable in execution
proceedings. It is further submitted that said judgment and
certificate became final, as the petitioner availed and exhausted
all remedies available to challenge it under the law.
6. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the
judgment and certificate dated 13.04.2011, the respondent
initiated execution proceedings under Section 20 of the Rajasthan
Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'Act of 2001' hereinafter) on
25.04.2023, furnishing complete details of the outstanding dues.
However, the petitioner neither filed any reply nor raised
objections at the appropriate stage and instead, belatedly invoked
Section 47 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. by filing an application
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:51:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12567] (3 of 6) [CW-4664/2026]
on 29.01.2026, which has rightly been rejected by the Executing
Court.
7. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 20(3) of the
Act of 2001, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in
the event, the tenant fails to vacate the premises within the
stipulated period from the issuance of the certificate for recovery
of possession, the statute itself imposes a further liability upon
such tenant to pay mesne profits at the rate of three times the
rent as the premises let out for commercial purposes. It is,
therefore, contended that since the petitioner continued in
possession beyond the stipulated period, the respondent is legally
entitled to recover the enhanced amount.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that
once the rate of rent and the relevant period of liability stand
determined by the Rent Tribunal, the certificate/decree cannot be
regarded as merely declaratory. It remains executable
notwithstanding that the exact amount requires arithmetical
computation during execution. In support of this contention,
reliance has been placed on the following judgments:
i. Martin & Harris Private Limited and Ors. vs.
Rajendra Mehta and Ors. reported in AIR 2022
SC 3287;
ii. Kapil Chandla vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal,
Kota & others reported in 2016(1) RLW 712
(Raj);
iii. Mustaq Malawat vs. Jitendra Gidwani reported
in 2020 Raj CANDID 562;
iv. Mustaq Malawat vs. Jitendra Gidwani reported
in 2020 Raj CANDID 651;
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:51:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12567] (4 of 6) [CW-4664/2026]
v. Mojika Real Estate and Developer Private
Limited vs. Jaipur Builders LLP reported in
2023(1) RLW 692 (Raj); and
vi. Mahaveer Prasad vs. The Rent Tribunal,
Bhilwara and ors. reported in 2024(1) RCR
(Rent) 375.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record
and gone through the judgments cited by the parties.
10. A perusal of the judgment and certificate dated 13.04.2011
reveals that the Rent Tribunal, while allowing the application, not
only directed eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises but
also revised the rent with effect from 01.04.2003 and 01.04.2011
respectively, with a further stipulation of annual enhancement at
the rate of 5%. It was also specifically provided that such revised
rent shall be payable from the date of filing of the application i.e.
11.11.2005.
11. Once the Rent Tribunal has determined the rate of rent and
specified the date from which such revised rent is payable, the
liability of the tenant stands crystallized. The mere absence of
exact arithmetical quantification in the decree does not render it
inexecutable, as such quantification can be worked out during
execution proceedings.
12. The contention of the petitioner that the certificate/decree is
purely declaratory and does not permit recovery of arrears, cannot
be accepted. Determination of rent coupled with a direction
regarding its payment from a specified date, creates an
enforceable obligation. The Executing Court has, therefore, not
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:51:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12567] (5 of 6) [CW-4664/2026]
travelled beyond the decree but has acted in furtherance of its
proper execution.
13. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is limited as this Court does not act as a
court of appeal over orders passed by subordinate courts.
Interference is warranted only in cases involving patent lack of
jurisdiction, manifest perversity or gross miscarriage of justice.
14. In the present case, the Executing Court has duly considered
the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 47 of C.P.C.
and upon proper appreciation of the decree and the material on
record, has concluded that the certificate/decree is executable
even with respect to the rent component. The said finding does
not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting
interference.
15. The argument regarding delivery of possession is of no avail,
as the same does not absolve the petitioner of the monetary
liability arising from the certificate/decree.
16. This Court also notes that the judgment and certificate dated
13.04.2011 has attained finality, and the petitioner cannot be
permitted to indirectly reopen the same in execution proceedings
by raising untenable objections.
17. The reliance placed on Hiralal Patni (supra) is not applicable
in the facts of the present case. In the present case, the
certificate/decree clearly determines the revised rent and specifies
the date from which it is payable, thereby creating a binding and
enforceable obligation capable of execution.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:51:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12567] (6 of 6) [CW-4664/2026]
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.02.2026
passed by the learned Executing Court.
19. The writ petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed.
20. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
182-/Inder//-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 03:51:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
