Point of Law : Section 9(a) strikes a balance between rights of landlord and tenant - It provides for an opportunity of 30 days to the tenant to pay arrears of rent and only once tenant fails to do so, is the landlord afforded right to initiate eviction proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 08.08.2007 passed in Appeal No. 82/2004 by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the order of eviction dated 20.11.2004 was set aside, the petitioner-landlord has preferred the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India with the following prayers:

i) to pass appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2007 passed in Appeal No. 82/2004 by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur City Jaipur in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Sharma vs. Mohan Lal Soni;

ii) to pass appropriate writ, order or directing giving a declaration that the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in application N. 202/2004 Mohan Lal Soni vs. Jagdish Prasad is perfectly legal and judicious and which never required interference or intervention by the Appellate Tribunal and the said order 20.11.2004 be upheld making the respondent tenant liable and responsible for vacating the premises occupied by them as tenant of the petitioner;

iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner;”

2. The brief and necessary facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The property in question was let out by the petitioner-landlord to the respondent tenant in the year 1973 and the rent agreement was executed on 24.05.1973.

(ii) The petitioner-landlord, by way of legal notice dated 19.08.2003, demanded arrears of rent due for the period of December 2002 to July 2004 and amounting to Rs. 2200, within a period of 30 days.

(iii) The notice dated 19.08.2003 also contained details of bank account of the petitioner-landlord in which the arrear amount was to be deposited.

(iv) The notice dated 19.08.2003 was received by the son of the respondent-tenant on 21.08.2003.

(v) The respondent-tenant deposited an amount of Rs. 3575, being the arrears of rent for the period December 2002-December 2003, on 27.12.2003.

(vi) The petitioner-landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short “RRCA”) before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in the month of January 2004.

(vii) The Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 20.11.2004, allowed the petition filed by the petitioner-landlord and ordered eviction of the respondent-tenant by declaring the respondent-tenant as ‘defaulter’.

(viii) The respondent-tenant filed an appeal (No. 82/2004) against the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Case No. 202/2004.

(ix) The appeal (No. 82/2004) filed by the respondent-tenant was allowed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 08.08.2007 and the order dated 20.11.2004 was quashed and set aside.

(x) Against the order dated 08.08.2007, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-landlord and the same was admitted on 04.10.2012.

(xi) The petitioner-landlord Mr. Mohan Lal Soni, by way of registered sale deed dated 29.01.2021, sold the property in question to Mr. Nand Lal Soni.

(xii) Mr. Mohan Lal Soni died on 11.05.2021.

(xiii) Vide order dated 31.10.2022, the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC by the applicant Mr. Nand Lal Soni, for substitution of applicant as the petitioner-landlord in the present writ petition, was allowed subject to just objections which may be raised by the opposite side at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord, at the outset, submits that vide sale deed dated 29.01.2021, all rights, titles and interest in the property in question now vests with the present petitioner-landlord Mr. Nand Lal Soni. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that the Rent Tribunal had exhaustively dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and had rightly concluded that the respondent-tenant was a defaulter as he failed to tender the arrears of rent in due time of the premises occupied by him. It is an admit