Back
SANDEEP MEHTA, RAMESHWAR VYAS
Sushil Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Faiyaz Ali – Respondent
ORDER
1. This intra court appeal is directed by the appellant (tenant) against the Order dated 09.04.2021 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 72/2021 whereby, the application preferred by the appellant (tenant) for recalling the Order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1661/2021, was rejected.
2. The brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
3. The respondent - Faiyaz Ali being the landlord, filed an application for eviction before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur against the appellant herein under Section 9(i) & (m) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (afterwards referred to as 'the Act of 2001'). As per the landlord, the proceedings of the application were being stalled by the tenant and the tribunal was turning a blind eye to his dilating tactics. Hence, the landlord filed the above writ petition in this Court. The pertinent assertions made by the landlord at Paras 4 & 5 as well as grounds (A), (B) & (D) of the writ petition are reproduced as under :-
The judgment establishes that false allegations in eviction proceedings can lead to penalties against the party making such claims, reinforcing the need for honesty in legal pleadings.
The court ruled that while procedural provisions may be directory, a party must substantiate claims of hardship to justify delays in legal proceedings.
The court established that while adherence to procedural timelines is crucial, courts may exercise discretion to allow additional opportunities for parties to present their cases in the interest of j....
The court addressed the validity of eviction petitions based on alleged forged documents, emphasizing the need for a legitimate landlord-tenant relationship.
The court affirmed that eviction under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act does not require prior notice for arrears of rent, focusing on bonafide necessity.
Point of Law : Object of s. 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Rent Tribunal to have not less than three years of experience as mandated by Section 1....
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
