RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
(JAIPUR BENCH)
Arun Mishra, C.J. and Prashan Kumar Agrawal, J.
Sajjan Kumar Agarwal and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Rent Control Appellate Tribunal
and Ors. —Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 528 of 2011
Decided on 5.5.2011
(ii) Constitution of India—Articles 226 and 227—Writ jurisdiction—A finding of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is found that finding was vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse—High Court should not interfere with findings of fact simply because it felt persuaded to take different view on materials on record. (Para 22)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Arun Mishra, C.J. —The intra-court appeal has been preferred as against the order of the Single Bench dated 22.2.2011 dismissing writ application No. 14833/2010, which was preferred against the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 23.10.2010 whereby appeal of the appellants was dismissed and the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 20.4.2010 rejecting application under Order 21, Rule 97 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, was affirmed.
2. Facts in short are that on 26.4.1984, late Chaturbhuj Agrawal, father of appellants, had taken shop in question on rent situated at M.I. Road, Jaipur from late Smt. Hajara Bai for business purposes. Thereafter, legal heirs and successors of late Smt. Hajara Bai sold the shop in question to Smt. Aanchi Devi vide registered sale deed dated 25.1.2003 and since then, she became owner of the shop in question and thus, rent for the month of February, 2003 to the tune of Rs. 651 was sent by the tenant. Mahendra Kumar Agrawal to landlord Smt. Aanchi Devi through cheque. However, the said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, notices were sent for payment of rent, but despite that, rent was not paid and thus, tenant has committed default in payment of rent for the period from 1.2.2003 to 31.5.2004 and on that ground, a petition for eviction was filed by landlord—Smt. Aanchi Devi against tenant Mahendra Kumar Agrawal on 2.6.2004 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment and decree dated 11.4.2007 allowed the petition and ordered for eviction of tenant Mahendra Kumar Agrawal from the shop in question on the ground of committing default in making payment of rent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Rent Tribunal, appeal was preferred before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.2.2010.
3. Thereafter, when the possession of the shop in question was not handed over by the tenant Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, execution petition was filed. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was filed by the appellants raising objections that they were also co-tenants alongwith Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, but they were not made party to the eviction petition and therefore, order of eviction was not executable against them. A reply that application was filed on behalf of the landlord-Smt Aanchi Devi stating therein that after death of Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Mahendra Kumar Agrawal became the sole tenant as he was carrying on business in the shop in question. Apart from this, Mahendra Kumar Agrawal has also filed a civil suit against one Ayub Khan in which he has categorically stated that he was the sole tenant being proprietor of the business run in the shop in question. Even the cheque for payment of rent for the month of Feb. 2003 was also issued by Mahendra Kumar Agrawal. The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2010 rejected the application of the appellants. Aggrieved thereby, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of Appellate Rent Tribunal, writ application was preferred and the same was also dismissed by the Single Bench. Hence, the intra-Court appeal has been preferred.
4. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat Ranjan appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the appellants became joint tenants on death of late Chaturbhuj Agrawal and therefore, it was necessary to implead them in the proceedings of eviction. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup & Anr. 1990 (4) SCC 700, in which decisions of the Apex Court in H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul AIR 1989 SC 1470 and Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay AIR 1963 SC 468, have been considered. The view
Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and Anr.
Kanji Manji v. The Trustee of the Port of Bombay
Prasantha Banerji v. Pushpa Ashoke Chandani and Ors.
Ramesh Chand Bose v. Gopeshwar Prasad Sharma
Mohd Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh
Ashok Chintaman Juker and Ors. v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri and Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.