Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Mahendra Kumar Jain - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2010
Decided On : 10-05-2019
For the Appellant :Ajeet Bhandari and Jitendra Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Puru Malik, Advocate
Headnote:
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Section 5,9 and 21 – Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998 – Petitioner challenging judgment passed by Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal whereby appeal preferred by petitioner against judgment was upheld – Alleging that petitioner-tenant not paid rent for period of months – Notice had been sent which was received by him on however rent was not deposited within a period of 30 days from date of notice. It was submitted that rent not deposited in bank account which was known to tenant – Notice was sent by tenant which was received by landlord-applicant wherein it was mentioned that petitioner-tenant had deposited amount as rent for months in account of landlord vide cheque and thus there has been default of non-payment of rent for more than 4 months after period of notice and 30 days thereafter in terms provisions of Section 9 of Act 2001 and liable to be evicted – Held, Court not find that plea taken by petitioner has any basis nor it can be said that it goes to root of case – Supreme Court in Rattan Lal Sharma was relating bias of Administrative Authorities in matter relating to departmental enquiry and applicability of principles of natural justice while proceedings before Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal treated to judicial proceedings as provided under Section 21 of Act 2001 – Both courts not relied upon rent note and therefore oral submissions of counsel regarding rent note being unregistered and unstamped no application as rent note been only looked into for collateral purposes – This Court is of firm view that in writ petition new plea regarding question of fact cannot be examined beyond scope of writ jurisdiction – Petition dismissed – (Paras: 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenging judgment passed by Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal whereby appeal preferred by petitioner against judgment was upheld – Alleging that petitioner-tenant not paid rent for period of months – Notice had been sent which was received by him on however rent was not deposited within a period of 30 days from date of notice. It was submitted that rent not deposited in bank account which was known to tenant – A notice was sent by tenant which was received by landlord-applicant wherein it was mentioned that petitioner-tenant had deposited amount as rent for months in account of landlord vide cheque and thus there has been default of non-payment of rent for more than 4 months after period of notice and 30 days thereafter in terms provisions of Section 9 of Act 2001 and liable to be evicted.
Findings of the court:
Court not find that plea taken by petitioner has any basis nor it can be said that it goes to root of case – Supreme Court in Rattan Lal Sharma was relating bias of Administrative Authorities in matter relating to departmental enquiry and applicability of principles of natural justice while proceedings before Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal treated to judicial proceedings as provided under Section 21 of Act 2001 – Both courts not relied upon rent note and therefore oral submissions of counsel regarding rent note being unregistered and unstamped no application as rent note been only looked into for collateral purposes – This Court is of firm view that in writ petition new plea regarding question of fact cannot be examined beyond scope of writ jurisdiction.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the judgment dated 21.04.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal Ajmer and the judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.04.2007 was upheld.
2. The brief facts which required to be considered are that the petitioner is a tenant of two shops situate at A.M.C. No. 7/10, Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer belonging to the landlords-respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The same was taken on rent on 10.10.2001 and a rent note was executed. An application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') was filed before the Rent Tribunal alleging that the petitioner-tenant has not paid rent for the period from 01.07.2005 to 31.10.2005. A registered notice has been sent on 03.11.2005 which was received by him on 05.11.2005, however the rent was not deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of notice. It was submitted that the rent was also not deposited in the bank account which was known to the tenant. A notice was sent by the tenant on 09.01.2006 which was received by the landlord-applicant on 14.01.2006 wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner-tenant had deposited a sum of ` 44,390/- as the rent for the month of July to September 2005 @ 7245/- and for the month of October @ 7475/- and rent for November and December 2005 @ 7590/- in the account of the landlord on 12.12.2005 vide cheque and thus there has been a default of non-payment of rent for more than 4 months after the period of notice and 30 days thereafter in terms of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and thus therefore liable to be evicted.
The tenant submitted reply to the application and pointed out that no bank account has been mentioned in the notice and thus the mandatory provisions of the Act has not been complied with as soon as the account number was sent, the rent was deposited to the bank on the very next date and no default has been committed by the petitioner-tenant. It was also further submitted that the notice was not in accordance with the order passed by the Rent Tribunal in the case No. 46/2003 filed by the landlord under Section 6 of the Act for revision of rent.
The respondent-landlord filed rejoinder to the reply and it was stated that the bank account number was already informed to the petitioner-tenant vide its earlier notice dated 29.09.2003 which was given for the purpose of revision of rent and the Tribunal while receiving rent had also mentioned it in its order dated 08.12.2003. It was also stated that the petitioner had deposited the rent in the bank account earlier and a receipt dated 08.01.2004 was produced in evidence.
3. Considering all the aspects the Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2007 proceeded to hold that the petitioner-tenant had committed default in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 and was therefore liable to be evicted. It proceeded to hold that the account number had already been known to the tenant and therefore there was no necessity to again mention the account number in the notice. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the said order in appeal preferred by the petitioner holding that there was no requirement to submit the account number in the notice. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition and vide order dated 12.03.2010, the writ petition was admitted and the effect and operation of the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal was stayed and thus the petitioner continued to remain in the rented premises.
4. Counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition has raised new grounds stating that the tenancy of the premises was admittedly from the 10th of October 2001 and as the tenancy starts from 10.10.2001, the notice served upon the petitioner vide Exhibit-4, was erroneous and contrary to the terms of the tenancy. Further argui
