The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable in an eviction petition under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 due to the 'summary procedure' for redressal of landlord tenant disputes and the non-binding nature of the CPC on the Rent Tribunal except in specified matters.

Headnote:
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC not maintainable in eviction petition under the Act of 2001 due to 'summary procedure' for redressal of landlord tenant disputes. Rent Tribunal not bound by CPC except in specified matters. Unauthorized continuation in possession post-termination of tenancy entails occupant being a tenant under the Act of 2001.
Fact of the Case:

The defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC had been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal in an eviction petition filed under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable in the eviction petition under the Act of 2001 due to the 'summary procedure' for redressal of landlord tenant disputes. The Rent Tribunal is not bound by the CPC except in specified matters. Unauthorized continuation in possession post-termination of tenancy entails the occupant being a tenant under the Act of 2001.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in an eviction petition under the Act of 2001 and the interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 2001 regarding unauthorized continuation in possession post-termination of tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the 'summary procedure' for redressal of landlord tenant disputes under the Act of 2001, the non-binding nature of the CPC on the Rent Tribunal except in specified matters, and the provision in the Act of 2001 that unauthorized continuation in possession post-termination of tenancy entails the occupant being a tenant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no occasion for the court to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

Judgement Key Points

The eviction petition was filed under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 as original application No. 203/2013 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan. (!) The defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC, which was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, via order dated 11.7.2013. (!) The revision petition (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 90 of 2013) was filed against the Rent Tribunal's order dismissing the defendant's application. (!) An ex parte certificate of possession had previously been passed against the defendant by the Rent Tribunal, which attained finality, though the defendant continued in possession as a tenant.[17000396230002]

JUDGMENT

1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate & Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Rent Tribunal') in original application No. 203/2013 whereby the defendant/ petitioner's (hereinafter 'the defendant') application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC had been dismissed.

2. In my considered opinion an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable in an eviction petition filed under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001'). The Act of 2001 provides for a 'summary procedure' for redressal of landlord tenant disputes and allowing for application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC would be a prescription for prolonging trials under the Act of 2001. Further section 21 (3) of the Act of 2001 provides that the Rent Tribunal and the appellate court shall not be bound by the CPC except in respect of specified matters detailed in clause (a) to (h) thereof. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC do not find any mention amongst clause (a) to (h) in Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001.

3. It is also in place to record that even subsequent to the passing of the exparte certificate of possession against the defendant by the Rent Tribunal which has attained finality the defendant continues to be in possession as a tenant. In terms of Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001, unauthorized continuation in possession even subsequent to termination of tenancy entails the occupant being a tenant against whom the landlord can take further proceedings and seek directions from the Rent Tribunal within the provisions of the Act of 2001.

4. In my considered opinion there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the impugned order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the trial court. The petition is without any force. Dismissed.Petition Dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(Raj) 689

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTAlok Sharma, J.Premlata Sharma @ Sita Sharma - AppellantVersusSuman Soni - RespondentS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 90 of 2013.Decided On : 2-01-2014

Login now and unlock premium legal research

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Alok Sharma, J.
Premlata Sharma @ Sita Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Suman Soni - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 90 of 2013.
Decided On : 2-01-2014