Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA
Rajendra Sharma S/o Prabhatilal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Akhtar Begum D/o Late Sameer Khan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and initial arguments (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the notice (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. counterarguments from respondent's counsel (Para 12 , 14 , 18) |
| 4. issues presented for the court's consideration (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's reasoning on tenant's default (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. precedent and its implications (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 7. final decision and implications (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
Order :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Tribunal’) in Rent Appeal No.24/2017 (CIS No.33/2017), whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 – Smt. Akhtar Begum has been allowed and a certificate of recovery of possession issued, while setting aside the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Tribunal’) in Rent Case No.09/2011.
2. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal and holding that the present pet
The court affirmed that landlords are entitled to seek eviction if tenants breach rental agreements by failing to pay dues for four months, interpreting the notice provision critically.
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.
Default in rent payment justifies eviction; refusal to accept notice constitutes valid service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence as an Appellate Court and the application of legal principles from relevant case laws in....
Non-payment of rent and lack of substantiation of defense claims do not warrant protection under eviction laws, emphasizing the importance of statutory notice compliance.
A tenant's right to seek repairs arises continuously under Section 44(3) of the Act, regardless of withdrawing a previous petition, which does not trigger res judicata.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of a petition itself can be considered as notice to the landlord, giving rise to a fresh cause of action, and the non-service of pr....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
