IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Ashok Kumar, S/o. Babulal Acharya - Petitioner
Versus
Lrs. of Shri Ramesh Chandra Kakani, S/o. Rooplal Kakani and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1357 Of 2020
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Order I Rule 10 - Rental agreement - Payment of outstanding rental dues - Evict shop - Order impugned may kindly be declared illegal and set aside to extent learned Appellate Court has directed petitioner to pay rent – Defence witness in trial below, was not believable as same appeared to be concocted in light of testimony rendered by respondents no. 1 to 3 – Para 11.
Finding of the Court :
Trial Court held that rent receipts produced on behalf of petitioner, by respondent no.4, a defence witness in trial below, was not believable as same appeared to be concocted in light of testimony rendered by respondents no. 1 to 3 which revealed that their father had in fact rented shop premises in question to petitioner - And that a diary in this regard was maintained by father of respondents no. 1 to 3, of accounts and other details regarding payments towards rent - Court finds that learned Courts below have rightly proceeded in passing impugned orders, directing petitioner to make necessary payments towards outstanding dues towards rent of shop premises in question - Petition does not warrant interference of this Court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-
II. The order impugned dated 16.12.2019 (Annex.10) may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside.
III. The judgment and decree impugned dated 15.02.2019 (Annex.-4) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be stayed.
IV. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed.
V. The respondents may be restrained not to take any coercive action action the petitioner and further, be restrained not to initiate the execution of the decree dated 15.02.2019.
VI. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted.
VII. Cost of the writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The dispute in question pertains to the payment of outstanding rental dues with respect to a shop premises, situated near the bus stand of Village-Gangrar, District-Chittorgarh.
3. The principal order assailed by way of the present petition is the order, dated 15.02.2019, passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Chittorgarh whereby the present petitioner-Ashok Kumar was directed to evict the shop premises in question and handover the possession thereof to the respondents no.1 to 3, and make payment of outstanding rental dues towards monthly rent, of Rs. 700/- for a period of 36 months prior to institution of suit, amounting to Rs. 25,200/- at a monthly interest rate of Rs.1/- per Rs.100, amounting to an additional Rs. 2,400/- i.e. a total of Rs. 27,600/- and an amount of Rs. 1,400/- towards use and occupation of the shop premises in question, to respondents no. 1 to 3.
4. Against such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 02/2019, before the learned District Judge, Chittorgarh; vide impugned order dated 23.07.2019, the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh gave certain directions to the petitioner to the effect, amongst others, that he furnish an undertaking that within a period of 15 days from that date, he will make payment of Rs. 25,200/- towards outstanding rental dues to the respondents no. 1 to 3, within a period of one month from the date of such order.
5. And against said the order, the petitioner preferred a review, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds:-
6.1 That the rental agreement (at Annex.1) was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.4, and that a perusal of the same would reveal manipulation in the form of over-writing, of the name of respondent no.2 over that of respondent no.4. And that, the petitioner has made due payments towards rent to the respondent no.4, rent receipts of which are placed at Annex.-2, and that the respondents 1 to 3 do not have a landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner.
6.2 And that, the impugned orders are bad in the eye of the law as the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury as a consequence of having to repay the amount towards rental dues, that which he has already been duly paid by him to respondent no.4.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned orders have been rightly passed, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances and the evidences placed on the record.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 further submitted that the suit, filed for eviction and seeking arrears of rent of the shop premises in question by respondents no. 1 to 3, was decreed in their favour.
8.1 Learned counsel also submitt
Defence witness in trial below, was not believable as same appeared to be concocted in light of testimony rendered.
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC is limited; High Court cannot interfere in the Trial Court's decision unless it is patently illegal or exhibits perversity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing unscrupulous tenants from avoiding rent payment during eviction proceedings, as emphasized by the court in its decisio....
The court established that a party is entitled to have issues framed that are not adequately covered by existing issues, ensuring a fair opportunity to present their case.
The court emphasized that during the pendency of a suit for eviction, considering an application for eviction would not be proper, and the petitioners had already availed a remedy by filing contempt ....
It is no longer res integra that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that he had not defaulted in payment of rent in order to get the protection under section 5 (1) of Assam Urban Area Rent Co....
Failure to comply with the payment of provisionally assessed rent arrears can lead to the court upholding an ejectment order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.