The execution procedure under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is distinct from the CPC, and repeated applications for similar relief constitute an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.)

This writ petition is filed with following prayer:-

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner suffered a final order dated 07.09.2018 under Section 9 of theRajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “the Act of 2001”) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan and a consequential recovery certificate qua the subject shop. Pursuant to an execution application filed by the respondent/landlord/decree holder (for brevity, “decree holder”), possession of the subject shop was handed over to the decree holder under direction of the learned executing Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Act of 2001 read with Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 claiming restoration of possession of the suit shop. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022. In these circumstances, this writ petition is filed with the aforesaid prayers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed the execution application without complying with the provision of Order 21 Rule 11 inasmuch as it was neither supported by her affidavit nor, the relevant documents to reflect her title in the subject property were submitted alongwith. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. Alexander and Others : AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1165 . He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. Although, the application filed by the petitioner with similar prayer has been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022; but, conspicuously, it is not the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition inasmuch as no prayer has been made for its quashing. Assuming it to be under challenge, if examined on merits; the order reveals that the application was dismissed on the premise that on earlier occasions also, the petitioner had filed different applications with similar averments/reilef which were rejected. Although, in the memo of writ petition, this finding of the learned Rent Tribunal has not been assailed at all; however, on asking, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted certified copies of the order dated 08.02.2021, an application dated 19.03.2021 submitted by him and the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal thereupon for perusal of the Court. The documents are taken on record. As per the order dated 08.02.2021, the petitioner had prayed that alongwith the execution application, the decree holder has not submitted the requisite documents as required under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2001, Section 136 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and Order 19 CPC in absence whereof, possession warrant could not have been issued. However, the application came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal. Thereafter, he filed another application on 19.03.2021 praying therein that the decree holder be directed to submit necessary documents in terms of provisions of Order 21 Rule 11(2) and (3) CPC. That application was also dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant application dated 03.08.2021 which was dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to offer any explanation for moving successive applications claiming same/similar relief. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner is making similar prayer(s) again and again despite its rejection which amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.

7. Further, the co