Mahendra Kumar Jain vs Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sangeet Lodha, Inderjeet Singh,Mahendar Kumar Goyal, JJ.
Mahendra Kumar Jain - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Reference (Larger Bench) No. 1/2020 in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No. 853/2019
Decided on : 27-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari with, Mr. Jitendra Mishra and Priyansh Jain, Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Mr. Manish Sharma with Mr. Lakshay Pareek, Ms. Shalini Sheoran, Mr. Rajendra Soni with Mr. Vishal Soni, Mr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Mr. Bipin Gupta, Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Puru Malik, Ms. Priti Malik Mr. Narendra Malik Mr. Abhinav Sharma Mr. Shehban Naqvi Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi Advocates, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9, Section 19(6) and Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution - Question of maintainability of appeal against the judgment of a Single Bench in landlord-tenant disputes. The court examined whether the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal is akin to that of civil courts and clarified the nature of intra-court appeals, finding that Rent Tribunals discharge judicial functions and warrant supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, rendering appeals from judgments under Article 226 maintainable. Further, it confirmed that intra-court appeals are not maintainable against decisions made under Article 227. (Paras 80 and 32).

Facts of the case:
Tenant Mahendra Kumar Jain contested eviction proceedings initiated by landlord Shail Bhargava on grounds of alleged rent default. Appeals through the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal followed, with final challenge to the High Court's dismissal of his writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal possess judicial characteristics similar to civil courts.

Issues: Primarily focused on whether judgments under Articles 226 and 227 invite different appeal rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial orders of Rent Tribunals are only appealable under Article 227, not Article 226, reaffirming the distinction made by the Supreme Court in previous cases.

Result: Appeal dismissed confirming lack of maintainability for intra-court appeals against judgments made in Article 227 petitions.

Table of Content
1. maintanability of appeal under rajasthan rules 1952. (Para 1)
2. factual background of tenant eviction case. (Para 2)
3. maintainability arguments raised during appeal. (Para 3)
4. arguments on jurisdiction and scope of articles 226 and 227. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. overview of high court's extraordinary jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. supreme court's conclusions on article 226 and 227. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. distinction between civil options vs. tribunal actions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. judgments discussing judicial powers and authority. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. judicial powers of the state and quasi-judicial functions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. history and context of rent control legislation. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
11. provisions and procedures under the rajasthan rent act. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
12. application and enforcement mechanisms of rent act 2001. (Para 53 , 54 , 55)
13. judicial authority and procedural aspects of tribunals. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
14. summary of the tribunal's procedural and judicial functions. (Para 63 , 64 , 65)
15. final judgment about appeals and jurisdiction. (Para 66 , 67)
16. connection between eviction rulings and judiciary's control. (Para 68 , 69 , 70)
17. conclusion on functions of rent tribunal and appellate rent tribunal. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
18. court's final decision on jurisdiction and authority. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - The legal questions that fall for our determination in this reference made by the Division Bench of this Court read as under:

II) Whether the writ petition filed against the judgement of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal by very nature of the dispute, would be considered to have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the pleadings?"

2. The Background facts giving rise to the legal issues may be summarized thus: The appellant-Mahendra Kumar Jain is a tenant since 10.10.2001 in commercial premises i.e. two shops situated at Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer, owned by the landlord-Smt. Shail Bhargava and others, the respondent nos. 3 to 6 herein. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 ("the Act of 2001") before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from the rented premises, on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 1.7.2005 to 31.10.2005. The appellant-tenant contested the petition by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the respondent-landlord did not disclose her bank account number in the notice served and thus, the mandatory condition precedent for maintaining the petition seeking eviction on the ground of default, was not satisfied. Besides, it was averred that pursuant to the notice served, the arrears of rent due was deposited and therefore, there is no default in payment of rent in terms of Section 9 (a) of the Act of 2001. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the appellant-tenant has committed default in payment of rent and accordingly, he was directed to be evicted from the premises in question vide judgment dated 21.4.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 19 (6) of the Act of 2001, before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, which stood dismissed vide judgment dated 21.12.2009. Assailing the legality of the judgments of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the appellant preferred a writ petition purp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Raj) 607

Cases Referred (27)