Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pradeep Nandrajog, Dinesh Chandra Somani, JJ.
K. Ramnarayan – Appellant
Versus
Pukhraj – Respondent
D.B. Civil Reference No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 26-10-2017
For the Petitioners: R.K. Agarwal, Alok Chaturvedi.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shikha Parnami.
Headnote:
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Section 2(i) 9 18 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Section 2(i) 13 – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – Section 13(1) – Transfer of Property Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to Disposed/Adjudicate upon Tenancy Issues – A batch of writ petitions challenging orders passed by the learned Civil Judges were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order holding that since the tenancy was determined before notifications were issued extending the Rajasthan rent Control Act, 2001 to the towns where the suit property was situated, the civil courts alone would have jurisdiction to decide the lis between the landlord and the tenant – But at the same time, by the last paragraph of the order, noting a conflicting view taken by other learned Single Judge, reference was made to the Division Bench to decide the issue – This explains D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2015 being registered – The three D.B. Civil Special Appeals challenge the same impugned order dated in so far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3925/2015 and 3926/2015 and 3968/2015 have been dismissed – The vexing issue that arises for our consideration during the course of present proceedings is whether the civil courts which have been in seisin of lis between landlords and tenants would now be divested of their jurisdiction to adjudicate such cases in view of the subsequent notifications extending the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to the areas in which the suit property is situated – Held, As highlighted in the preceding paragraphs, the over-arching and inclusive definition of tenant as comprised under Section 2(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 clearly enwombs within its fold an "ex-tenant" – In conjunction thereof, Court have noticed that under Section 18 of the said Act the legislature has expressly imposed a clear embargo on civil courts to "hear and decide" disputes between landlord and tenants –The twin circumstances bring the present case clearly within the exception recognised under paragraph 22 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajender Bansals case (supra), wherein, it was observed that rent legislations of this kind would come to the rescue of tenant even in respect of pending cases – The inescapable conclusion emerging from the conclusion delineated above is that the benefit of the mandate of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 would have to be extended even in those class of cases where a decree has already been passed by the civil court and the same has been contested by preferring an appeal – The reference is accordingly answered in terms of para 31 and 43 above – Meaning thereby, once the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal areas, the Civil Courts would lose jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a landlord and a tenant – No tenant could be evicted by a Civil Court – The eviction had to be as per the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and on the grounds specified in Section 9 thereof – Even where decrees of ejectment had been passed by the Civil Courts and matters were pending consideration in appeal, the civil proceedings would lapse – As regards the three D.B. Civil Special Appeals, the same are disposed of setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh dismissing applications filed by the tenants to amend the memo of appeal to bring on record the subsequent event of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 being extended to the municipal area of Kishangarh
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. A batch of writ petitions challenging orders passed by the learned Civil Judges were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.05.2015 holding that since the tenancy was determined before notifications were issued extending the Rajasthan rent Control Act, 2001 to the towns where the suit property was situated, the civil courts alone would have jurisdiction to decide the lis between the landlord and the tenant. But at the same time, by the last paragraph of the order, noting a conflicting view taken by other learned Single Judge, reference was made to the Division Bench to decide the issue. This explains D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2015 being registered.
2. The three D.B. Civil Special Appeals challenge the same impugned order dated 18.05.2015 in so far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3925/2015 and 3926/2015 and 3968/2015 have been dismissed.
3. Relevant would it be to note that when the civil suits seeking ejectment were filed the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was not applicable to the concerned municipal areas. On 11.07.2014, notification was issued by the State Government extending the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to the municipal areas of Kishangarh, Beawar, Bhiwadi, Hindon City, Gangapur City, Sujangarh, Makrana, Fatehpur, Suratgarh, Ratangarh, Sardarshahar and Balotra.
4. A preliminary objection by learned counsel for the respondents to the maintainability of the above three captioned writ appeals needs to be noted and decided first. The argument is that challenge before the learned Single Judge was to an order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh dismissing applications filed by the tenants seeking amendment in the appeal to bring on record the fact that by a notification issued in July, 2014 the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 had been extended to the municipal area of Kishangarh and thus the tenants could not be evicted by a decree passed by a Civil Court. It was urged that no appeal would lie against the impugned order for the reason the writ petition challenged an order passed by a Civil Court.
5. Objection has to be overruled for the reason the learned Single Judge disagreed with an earlier decision passed by a learned Single Judge on the question of whether the Civil Courts would lose jurisdiction once a Rent Act was extended to the area where the suit property was situated. The earlier decision was that the Civil Courts would lose jurisdiction. After dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has, vide para 20 of the order, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a Division Bench.
6. The vexing issue that arises for our consideration during the course of present proceedings is whether the civil courts which have been in seisin of lis between landlords and tenants would now be divested of their jurisdiction to adjudicate such cases in view of the subsequent notifications extending the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to the areas in which the suit property is situated.
7. On the strength of the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported as Rajender Bansal and Others vs. Bhuru (Dead) through legal Representatives and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 202 it has been fervently contended on behalf of the landlords that the jurisdiction of the civil courts would remain preserved in pending proceedings that have been initiated before the issuance of notifications extending the operation of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to the areas in which the suit property is situated.
8. At the outset, it would thus be apposite to delve into the mandate of the recent enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in Rajender Bansal's case (supra).
9. A perusal of the said decision evinces that a similar issue fell for determination of the Supreme Court in the context of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. In view of the notifications subsequently extending the applicability of the Har
