Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Purushottam Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Swaroop S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Ojha – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5147 of 2024
Decided On : 05-04-2024
EVICTION - RENT CONTROL - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 9(A); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 31 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 9(A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which stipulates that a tenant cannot be evicted unless they have defaulted in rent for four months and have been given proper notice. The court interpreted the requirement for landlords to disclose bank account details and send notices via registered post. The court found that the landlords had complied with these provisions, leading to the conclusion that the eviction was justified. The court also addressed the procedural aspects under the CPC, concluding that the Rent Tribunal was not bound by CPC rules, thus affirming the eviction decree.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, tenants, challenged eviction orders from the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal, which were based on claims of default in rent payment by the landlords. The landlords alleged that the tenants had not paid rent for several years despite multiple notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both tribunals had adequately considered the evidence and established that the tenants had defaulted on rent payments. The court upheld the eviction orders, confirming that the landlords had followed the necessary legal procedures.
Issues: Whether the tenants had defaulted in rent payments and whether the eviction notices were valid under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 9(A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 were satisfied, as the tenants had not paid rent for the required duration and had received proper notice. The court also ruled that the procedural requirements of the CPC were not applicable to the Rent Tribunal's proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction orders issued by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners/tenant have preferred this writ petition challenging the judgments dated 18.01.2023 (Annex.5) and 20.01.2024 (Annex.7) passed by Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, respectively whereby eviction decree has been passed against the petitioners from the suit shop.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises under the provisions of Section 9 (A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘Act of 2001’). In the application, it was inter-alia alleged that the suit property, situated in Nagori Garden, Bhilwara was let out on 01.05.2002. In the application, the respondents alleged that earlier also a petition seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenant was filed on 10.08.2006 on the ground of default in payment of rent, material alteration and reasonable bonafide necessity, however, the said petition was dismissed on 17.01.2017, against which the appeal preferred by the respondents/landlord is pending. During pendency of the appeal, initially the rent was deposited by the tenant in Bank account of Sh. Bhagwati Prasad up till September 2007, however, after death of Sh. Bhagwati Prasad, the petitioners stopped making payment of the monthly rent. Thereafter, the respondents served a legal notice through their counsel on 29.02.2012 calling upon the petitioners/tenant to pay outstanding rent from October 2007, however, even after receiving the legal notice, the petitioners failed to pay the outstanding rent. Thereafter, another notice dated 13.02.2017 was sent to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to deposit outstanding rent to the tune of Rs.17,42,890/- (i.e. from October 2007 to January 2017 i.e. for 112 months) in the Bank account, the details whereof were also mentioned in the notice dated 13.02.2017. The petitioners, after receipt of the notice dated 13.02.2017 deposited a sum of Rs.6,48,927/- on 16.03.2017 in the Bank account of the landlord i.e. up till September 2011, however, remaining amount was not deposited by the petitioners. Thereafter, on 04.04.2017 again a notice was issued by the landlord through their counsel requesting the petitioners to deposit remaining outstanding rent i.e. Rs.11,32,937/-, however, instead of depositing the outstanding rent, a vague reply was given by the tenant through their counsel while denying that any outstanding rent was there to be paid by them. It was rather alleged in the reply to the notice by the petitioners that although rent up till September 2017 was paid by them, but the receipt was not issued by the landlord and that the rent was paid by them in cash. It was further alleged that the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.6,48,927/- towards the outstanding rent from October 2007 up till August 2011, however, the remaining amount was never ever paid by the tenant. Thus, the application seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenant was filed on the ground of default in payment of the rent and for recovery of outstanding rent to tune of Rs.6,66,112/- and till the eviction of the petitioners, the rent be directed to be paid as per prevailing monthly rent i.e. Rs.19,487/- and as per agreement from the month of May 2018, the enhanced rent of Rs.21,435/- be paid.
3. On receipt of the summons, the petitioners/tenant filed their reply while denying default in payment of the rent. The petitioners in their reply alleged that though the rent up to September 2016 was paid, however, payment receipts were not issued by the landlord despite repeated requests being made by the petitioners. The petitioners also alleged that as such no rent was due of four months and the petitioners had deposited Rs.6,48,927/- in the Bank account and the rent which was claimed by the landlord, was time barred. It was thus prayed that the application seeking eviction be dismissed.
4. The respondents/landlord in support of their case examined one Sh. Krishna Swarop as AW.1 an
The court established that under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, landlords must provide proper notice of rent arrears, and tenants can be evicted for non-payment if the legal requirements are m....
Default in rent payment justifies eviction; refusal to accept notice constitutes valid service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and can only interven....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of first default in payment of rent by a deceased tenant extends to the heirs, and mere enhancement of rent without altering other....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.
A tenant's statutory obligation to pay rent regularly remains intact despite pending proceedings under Section 8(5) for deposit of rent; failure to do so, resulting in accumulation of arrears, consti....
Eviction under rent control law is warranted where the tenant defaults on rent for over six months, negating hardship claims absent a bona-fide requirement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
