MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Shivlal – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal") in Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020 (CIS No.04/2020) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"), has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the original application filed by the respondent No.1/landlord (for brevity "the landlord") under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity as also material alteration, came to be allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu vide final order dated 17.02.2020 where against, the tenant filed an appeal which is pending consideration in the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therein, the tenant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seekin
The Appellate Rent Tribunal can only take evidence in exceptional circumstances and cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal.
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 court upheld the dismissal of the tenant's appeal due to negligence and failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant.
The appellate court has the discretion to frame additional issues and record additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 25 and Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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 necessity for eviction must be assessed at the time of the application, and not all subsequent events justify amendments to pleadings.
Since the Rent Tribunals have been given power to deal with incidental matters relating to dispute between landlord and tenant also, the case in hand, where suit for possession has been filed before ....
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.
The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenant's subletting of premises, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition under limited supervisory jurisdiction.
: Court can always lift such veil and see real purpose of filing of suit. Section 18 of the Rent Control Act of 2001 admittedly bars the jurisdiction of any Civil Court in the matters relating to ten....
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.