Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(Raj) 2493

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Nalini Mehta - Appellant
Versus
State of Bank of India - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3076 of 2004
Decided On : 11/07/2005

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the Petitioner.
Mr. J.K. Chanda, for the Respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal in hearing and deciding disputes between landlords and tenants, and the overriding effect of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

Headnote:
Rent Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 18, Section 29 - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, specifically focusing on Section 18 and Section 29, and their overriding effect on other laws. The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal in hearing and deciding disputes between landlords and tenants, and the applicability of certain chapters of the Act to specific premises and tenancies.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the respondent-State Bank of India, claiming non-payment of rent and refusal to hand over possession of the premises. The Rent Tribunal ordered the respondent-Bank to vacate the premises and pay mesne profits. The Appellate Rent Tribunal set aside the order, stating that the matter was under the jurisdiction of a Civil Court only.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Appellate Tribunal misinterpreted the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, and proceeded on a total misinterpretation of the plain provisions of law. The court held that the Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute between the landlord and tenant, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision.
Issues: The issues involved were the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal, the interpretation of Section 18 and Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, and the applicability of certain chapters of the Act to the dispute between the landlord and tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the misinterpretation of the provisions of the Act by the Appellate Tribunal, the overriding effect of Section 18 and Section 29 of the Act, and the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal in hearing and deciding disputes between landlords and tenants.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, the decision on issue No. 3 by the Rent Tribunal was upheld, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Rent Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Judgement Key Points

The Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide disputes between landlords and tenants in areas where the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 applies, notwithstanding any other law. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [17000027210005][17000027210015][17000027210021]
Provisions of Chapters II and III of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply to premises let out to banks, but this exclusion does not oust the Rent Tribunal's jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes concerning such premises. [17000027210014][17000027210019][17000027210020][17000027210021] (!)
Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 provides that only the Rent Tribunal, and no civil court, has jurisdiction over petitions relating to landlord-tenant disputes filed under the Act, even where Chapters II and III do not apply; in such cases, the Tribunal must apply principles from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Contract Act, 1872, or other substantive laws as if before a civil court. (!) (!) (!) (!) [17000027210015][17000027210021]
Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 gives the Act overriding effect over any inconsistent provisions in other laws or instruments. (!) [17000027210016][17000027210009]
For petitions seeking recovery of possession of premises where Chapters II and III do not apply, the time schedule and procedure in Section 15 of the Act apply mutatis mutandis. (!) [17000027210021]
Section 3(iii)(b) and 3(x) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 exclude application of Chapters II and III to certain premises, including those at divisional headquarters with monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 or more, and premises let to banks. [17000027210010][17000027210014]
The Act applies to municipal areas comprising district headquarters, such as Udaipur, effective from April 1, 2003. (!) [17000027210013][17000027210019]
In a dispute over eviction after lease expiry, the landlord claimed mesne profits at Rs. 1,00,000 per month from June 2003 and vacant possession; the tenant bank contested jurisdiction and claimed renewal option. [17000027210001][17000027210002][17000027210004]
The Rent Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction (Issue No. 3), ordered eviction, and awarded mesne profits at the original rent rate of Rs. 39,610 per month. [17000027210005][17000027210006] (!) (!)
The Appellate Rent Tribunal erroneously held no Tribunal jurisdiction for bank tenancies, set aside the order, and directed dismissal, based on misinterpretation of Section 18. [17000027210007][17000027210008] (!)
The High Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order, upheld the Rent Tribunal's decision on jurisdiction, and remanded for fresh decision on other issues. [17000027210011][17000027210022][17000027210023][17000027210024] (!)

Judgment

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The petitioner has submitted this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 20.05.2004 (Annexure-2) passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur whereby the order dated 20.03.2004 (Annexure-1) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Case No. 43/2003 has been set aside and the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner against the respondent-Bank has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this writ petition are that the petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the respondent-State Bank of India before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur with the submissions that a lease-deed was executed between the parties on 04.08.1999 and in accordance with the terms thereof , the demised premises were required to be handed over to the petitioner in the mid night of 14/15.09.2002 and despite several letters, the respondent has not handed over the possession of the premises whose monthly rent was Rs. 39,610/-. The petitioner had informed the respondent by the letter dated 212.2002 that the lease has come to an end on 15.09.2002 and thereafter, the respondent was not a tenant and should make a payment of Rs. 3,50,000/-per month towards use and occupation of the premises. Despite reminders, the Bank has neither handed over the possession of the premises nor paid damages for use and occupation. The Assistant General Manager of the Udaipur Branch of the respondent informed the petitioner by the letter dated 22.01.2003 that they were ready to negotiate for new terms but no person contacted the petitioner nor proposed the rental and terms of the tenancy and a baseless reply was sent to the notice; the petitioner limited her claim of mesne profits at Rs. 1,00,000/-per month and claimed this amount from the month of June, 2003 and so also the relief of delivery of vacant possession.

3. The respondent Bank contested the petition denying the claim of damages at Rs. 1,00,000/-per month and asserted that the rent was being paid to the petitioner which has been accepted by her. It was asserted that the lease deed was executed on 14.09.1999 with a clear stipulation of the option of renewal at the time of the expiry of lease on mutually acceptable conditions and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to recover possession of the premises.

4. Copies of the pleadings have not been produced on record by either of the parties, however, it appears that an objection was raised about jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear such a petition and on this objection, issue No. 3 was framed.

5. The issues framed by the Tribunal read as under: -

^^1-vk;k vthZnkj vthZ esa of.kZr ifjlj dk [kkyh HkqäHkksx izR;FkhZ ls izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS \ & vthZnkj 2-vk;k izsnk ifjlj dks yht MhM esa of.kZR;FkhZ }kjk fdjk; lqr vof /k dh lekfIr ds ipkr~ [kkyh HkqäHkksx vthZnkj iqnZ ugha djus ls vthZnkj izdks lqR;FkhZ ls #i;k 1]00]000 #i, v{kjs ,d yk[k #i, izfrekg dh nj ls ekg tuw] 2003 ls ifjlj dk [kkyh HkqäHkksx izkIr gksus rd varZHkwr ykHk dh jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ & vthZnkj 3- vk;k bl izkFkZuki= dh lquokbZ dk Jo.k vf/kdkj bl vf/kdj.k dks ugha gksdj flfoy U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA

& izR;FkhZ 4- vuqrks"k \**

6. The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. However, on issue No. 2, it was held that she was entitled to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 39,610/-only. On issue No. 3 relating to the question of jurisdiction, the Tribunal rejected the objection and held thus,-

^^bl lac/k es U;k;ky; us mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh /kkjk 18 jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e 2001 ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj rRle; izo`r fdlh Hkh vU; fof/k esa vUrfoZ"V fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] mu {kS=ksa esa] ftuesa s ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh vkSsbl vf/kfu;e dk izlkj gS] bl vf/kfu;e ds mica/kkaj fdjk; nkj ds chp ds fooknksa vkSj a Qkby dh xbZ vftZ;ks muls lac) rFkk vkuqa"kfxd fo"k;kas ds laca/k esa dks lquus vkSj fofUkfpr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk dsoy fdjk;k vf/kdj.k dks gksxh u fd fdlh Hkh fl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(Raj) 2493

High Court Of RajasthanJudgename : Dinesh MaheshwariNalini Mehta - AppellantVersusState of Bank of India - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3076 of 2004Decided On : 11/07/2005

The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal in hearing and deciding disputes between landlords and tenants, and the overriding effect of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Nalini Mehta - Appellant
Versus
State of Bank of India - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3076 of 2004
Decided On : 11/07/2005