Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 959
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
SHANTI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
LRS OF LAKSHMI NARAYAN – Respondent
CR / 36 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Civil Procedure Code : Order 7 Rule 11
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - A suit regarding ownership and related reliefs is outside the purview of a Rent Tribunal, which is limited to landlord-tenant disputes. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The revision petition was filed against an order rejecting an application asserting that the suit was barred as it pertained to a tenant relationship, while the plaintiffs sought cancellation of a sale deed and other ownership-related reliefs.
Findings of Court:
The reliefs prayed for, including cancellation of a sale deed and declaration of ownership, are to be adjudicated by a Civil Court, not a Rent Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the suit could be adjudicated by a Rent Tribunal given the nature of the reliefs sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the reliefs sought in the plaint, which involved ownership disputes, were not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri
Order :
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pokran in Civil Original Suit No.269/2017 (476/2016) (23/2012) whereby the application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of the defendants stood rejected.
2. Vide the above application, it was submitted on behalf of the defendants that the plaint deserves to be rejected being barred by law as the plaintiffs had specifically averred defendant No.1 to be their tenant and therefore, the suit definitely would lay before the Rent Tribunal only.
3. Heard the counsel and perused the material available on record.
4. A bare perusal of the plaint as placed on record along with the present petition reflects that the suit in question is for cancellation of a sale deed, declaration of ownership, permanent injunction and mesne profits.
5. In the specific opinion of this Court, the said reliefs cannot be within the domain of a Rent Tribunal. Furthermore, there is no averment in the plaint regarding defendant No.2 to be the tenant of the plaintiffs. What has been pleaded in the plaint is that defendant No.1 got some documents of ownership prepared in her name fraudulently and further, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on the strength of the said fraudulent document.
6. In view of the above specific pleadings and in view of the reliefs as prayed for in the suit, this Court is of the specific opinion that the issues involved therein could be decided only by a Civil Court and the application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. The order impugned does not deserve any interference. The present revision petition is hence, dismissed
7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
