RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Lrs of Damodar Bang & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Govind Singh & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10963 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Rajasthan Rent Control Act - Rent Control - Section 15(6) - The court interpreted Section 15(6) as enabling, allowing for conciliation only if both parties agree, affirming the Rent Tribunal's rejection of a conditional eviction proposal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Rent Tribunal's order rejecting their application under Section 15(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, which sought to conditionally vacate premises pending the landlord's eviction of other tenants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Tribunal's rejection was justified as the petitioners' proposal was conditional and did not align with the provisions of Section 15(6), which does not mandate conciliation if one party does not agree.
Issues: Whether the Rent Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioners' application for conditional eviction under Section 15(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 15(6) allows for conciliation but does not compel it if one party does not consent, and the conditional nature of the petitioners' proposal was not permissible.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 28.6.2022 (Annex.5) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 15(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'), has been rejected.
2. The proceedings for eviction were initiated by the respondents - landlord against the petitioners seeking eviction from the shop in question. The petition was filed under provisions of Section 9(i) and 9(j) of the Act indicating bonafide necessity of the landlord to expand the existing hotel into a 4 star hotel.
3. During pendency of the petition, the petitioners filed an application under Section 15(6) of the Act inter alia suggesting that as the petitioners have claimed in the petition that they would seek eviction of all other tenants from the Pipad House, of which, the premises involved in the petition was a small part, the petitioners were prepared to give an undertaking and get a decree passed that as and when the landlord gets all other tenants evicted from the Pipad House and starts demolishing the property in question, they would vacate the premises and, therefore, the landlord be called upon to settle the issue raised on the said proposal given by the petitioner.
4. The application was contested by the respondents - landlord.
5. The Rent Tribunal by its order impugned came to the conclusion that as the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners for evicting the premises was conditional, which is not the intention of provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act, no direction as prayed could be issued and consequently, rejected the application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application, it should have at least make efforts for conciliation or settlement of the dispute between the parties and as no such effort was made, the rejection of the application is not justified.
7. Submissions were also made that once the landlord was seeking eviction of the petitioners for constructing a 4 star hotel, till such time that the other tenants are evicted from the suit premises, evicting the petitioners, who were in possession of a small portion of the property, would not be justified and, therefore, a fair proposal was made by the petitioner, which should have been accepted by the landlord and directions should have been issued by the Rent Tribunal and, therefore, on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioners by filing application under Section 15(6) of the Act was ex facie baseless, inasmuch as, if such plea was sought to be permitted, all other tenants, against whom the proceedings have been initiated for eviction, would seek similar relief, which would result in the landlord being deprived of seeking eviction of any of the tenants from the suit premises.
9. Further submissions have been made that the provisions are directory only and the landlord cannot be forced to enter into a compromise on an application made by the tenant and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
11. The provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act, insofar as relevant, reads as under:-
12. A perusal of the above provision reveals that the provision is enabling, wherein, the Rent Tribunal may also make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between the parties. Merely because the Rent Tribunal has been given power to make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between
Section 15(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act permits conciliation but does not require it if one party does not agree, and conditional proposals for eviction are not valid.
The amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed only if the facts were not within the petitioner's knowledge prior to filing the reply.
The landlord can file an application for injunction during the pendency of the suit to prevent damage to the property by the tenant, as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and ....
Tenant can be evicted only if a valid ground for eviction was there at time of passing order for eviction by Rent Control Court.
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.
The landlord's discretion in choosing eviction grounds and the relevance of the premises' use after vacation were central to the court's decision.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding findings of fact arrived at by the lower tribunals and the landlord's right to choose the best place for doing business.
Tenants can be evicted for using premises inconsistently with tenancy purpose, supported by sufficient evidence from the landlord.
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.