Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Shivlal S/o Shri Purnaram – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh S/o Shri Rameshwar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) (for brevity “the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal”) in Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020 (CIS No.04/2020) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as “the tenant”) under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”), has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the original application filed by the respondent No.1/landlord (for brevity “the landlord”) under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity as also material alteration, came to be allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu vide final order dated 17.02.2020 where against, the tenant filed an appeal which is pending consideration in the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therein, the tenant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking appointment of the Site C
Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be permitted to usurp jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal.
The Appellate Rent Tribunal can only take evidence in exceptional circumstances and cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal.
Tenants can be evicted for using premises inconsistently with tenancy purpose, supported by sufficient evidence from the landlord.
The amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed only if the facts were not within the petitioner's knowledge prior to filing the reply.
The appellate court has the discretion to frame additional issues and record additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 25 and Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The provisions of the Act do not discriminate in the procedure applicable for a petition filed under Section 9 or for a petition filed under Section 18 of the Act.
The burden of proof in establishing default in payment of rent lies with the landlord, and the landlord must discharge the initial burden of proof.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding findings of fact arrived at by the lower tribunals and the landlord's right to choose the best place for doing business.
The court upheld the dismissal of the tenant's appeal due to negligence and failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant.
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
