Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Nupur Bhati, J.
Smt. Vimla Verma W/o late Shri Narendra Verma - Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Verma S/o Shri Rajendra Verma and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9196/2022
Decided On : 22-04-2024
RENT LAW - EVICTION PROCEEDINGS - RENT CONTROL ACT, ORDER 21 RULE 102 CPC - The court discussed the validity of eviction orders under the Rent Control Act, emphasizing the importance of established landlord-tenant relationships and the necessity of presenting evidence of ownership and tenancy. The court interpreted the provisions of Order 21 Rule 102 CPC, which restricts objections from parties not involved in the original eviction proceedings, thereby influencing its decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the eviction orders against the deceased tenant, claiming ownership and possession of the suit premises. The eviction was based on a compromise between the landlord and the tenant, which the petitioner alleged was fraudulent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of her ownership or a landlord-tenant relationship with the deceased tenant. The eviction decree was valid as it was based on a compromise, and the petitioner was not a party to the original eviction proceedings.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had the right to object to the eviction decree and whether the eviction was obtained fraudulently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party not involved in the original eviction proceedings cannot raise objections under Order 21 Rule 102 CPC. The absence of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims of ownership and tenancy led to the dismissal of her objections.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction orders of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal.
ORDER :
Nupur Bhati, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity of the orders dated 25.09.2018 (Annex.9) and 28.05.2022 (Annex.10) passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur respectively, whereby objections filed by the petitioner were rejected.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the first respondent/decree holder filed an eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking eviction of the second respondent (since deceased), who is now represented through his legal heirs, for the suit premises. In the said suit, in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the parties to the Eviction Petition No.247/2011 entered into a compromise and based on the compromise, eviction decree came to be passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on 16.12.2011 (Annex.1). After passing of the judgment dated 16.12.2011 (Annex.1), the petitioner preferred her objections on 22.03.2012 viz. that in fact the second respondent (late Sh. Harsukhlal @ Hasmukh) was her tenant, who was paying the rent of the suit premises. In the objections, the petitioner further alleged that she alongwith her family was residing in the suit premises and there were tenants also. The petitioner further alleged in the objection that the suit premises was let out by her being the owner of the premises to tenant/second respondent, however, the tenant in connivance with first respondent obtained a consent decree and thereby obtained eviction certificate. It was further alleged in the objections that on 12.03.2012 the second respondent handed her over the keys of the premises and on coming to know about the said fact, the first respondent assaulted and abused her family members. The petitioner thereafter gave a report of the said incident at Police Station Ratanada, wherein the first respondent was restrained and he threatened them to take possession of the entire premises. In the objections filed, the petitioner further alleged that appropriate proceedings are being undertaken in the competent court for possession of the entire premises. It was further stated that since vacant possession was with her, therefore, proceedings could not be undertaken in execution. Thus, by filing objections, the petitioner prayed that since the eviction decree was obtained fraudulently, therefore, execution proceedings be stayed and possession certificate may not be issued.
3. On behalf of first respondent, reply to objections was filed while denying the facts averred in the objections it was inter-alia alleged that Harsukhlal was the tenant of the first respondent and he was receiving the rent of the suit premises and the premises was let out by him only. It was further alleged that the objector/petitioner was residing in a portion of the suit premises as licencee, which licence was revoked by the first respondent/decree holder. It was further alleged that Smt. Chuunibai was the owner of the suit premises, and who through her power of attorney sold the suit premises to the decree holder and his brother Anil Verma and the possession was handed over to them only and thus he and his brother were the owner of the suit premises. It was further alleged that the objector being his great aunt was permitted to reside in a portion of the premises, however, she developed ill-will and pursuant thereto, she filed objections in connivance with tenant, Harsukhlal. It was further stated in the reply that the first respondent is the owner of the suit and on account of obtaining electricity connection in the name of objector, she could not be treated as owner of the suit premises, as she was in permissive possession of the suit premises and the objector had not submitted any title document of the suit premises of her having ownership qua the suit premises. It was further alleged that the suit premises was let out by him to Harsukhlal and on account of default in payment of the rent, the eviction petition was filed, where
A party not involved in eviction proceedings cannot challenge the decree, and the burden of proof lies on the objector to establish ownership and tenancy.
Point of law: Interference would be justified only in the event the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary and perverse or in excess of jurisdiction.
Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.
Stranger claiming unlawful possession via tenant's oral sale promise lacks locus to obstruct eviction decree execution; suppression of facts and false pleadings abuse process, warranting dismissal wi....
Interference would be justified only in the event the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary and perverse or in excess of jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to substantiate his claim of independent tenancy rights under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19....
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
Tenants cannot challenge the landlord's title in eviction proceedings; only the landlord-tenant relationship is relevant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The Trial Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the Petitioners with respect to alleged ownership of the tenanted premises on the basis of unregistered Will, and the non-filing of a p....
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
