SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
INDERJEET SINGH, J.
Shivlal and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Ramesh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7950 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akash Gupta on behalf of Mr. Behari Lal Agarwal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Harsh Sharma.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 21(3) - Writ petition challenging dismissal of application for summoning documents regarding ownership in eviction matter - Petitioners could not raise ownership dispute in eviction proceedings - No error in Appellate Court's refusal to allow application as it was not raised before Rent Tribunal - Dismissal of writ petition confirmed. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Jurisdiction - Courts cannot interfere if no substantial ground for intervention is established, especially regarding procedural matters not raised in the original tribunal. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, by the Appellate Court concerning eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against them. The Rent Tribunal had previously allowed eviction, prompting the appeal and subsequent application to summon ownership-related documents.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners could not dispute property ownership within the eviction proceedings and had failed to address the issue at the Rent Tribunal stage.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the petitioners could raise ownership disputes during eviction proceedings and whether the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that issues related to ownership cannot be raised in eviction matters and reiterated that absence of evidence of previous assertions in the Rent Tribunal precluded further consideration under writ jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to eviction order and application dismissal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention regarding ownership documents. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning for dismissal of writ. (Para 5 , 6)
4. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 7)

ORDER :

(Inderjeet Singh, J.)

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioners-non-applicants under Section 21(3) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant filed eviction application against the petitioners-non-applicants before the learned Rent Tribunal. The learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 17.02.2020 allowed the eviction application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the petitioners-non-applicants filed a regular appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners-applicants filed an application under Section 21 (3) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 19.04.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-non-applicants challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court.

3. Counsel for the petitioners-non-applicants submits that the learned Appellate Court has committed serious illegality in not allowing the application under Section 21(3) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 submitted by the petitioners-non-applicants and documents which the petitioners-non-applicants want to summon relates to ownership of the property in dispute.

4. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This writ petition filed by the petitioners-non-applicants deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the documents which the petitioners-non-applicants want to summon relates to ownership of the property in dispute, in my considered view, the petitioners-non-applicants cannot raise a dispute with regard to ownership of the property, secondly, the petitioners-non- applicants have failed to raise this issue before the learned Rent Tribunal at initial stage, lastly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top