Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4648
[2025:RJ-JP:51288]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14100/2025
M/s M D Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. (Transport Company), 29, Bhagwan
Nagar Society, Ishanpur, Ahemdabad Gujarat Through Director
Shri Prithvi Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur Ka Pata-J-196 Fateh Tiba,
Dhanna Das Ki Bagichi, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Firoz Khan Son Of Shri Ikram Khan, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Plot No-3, Fateh Tiba, Dhanna Das Ki Bagichi, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramji Lal Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manak Chand Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The respondent (landlord) filed an eviction petition against the petitioner (tenant) seeking eviction on grounds of default, sub-letting, nuisance, and bona fide requirement. The Rent Tribunal allowed the application, which was later upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The petitioner challenged these orders in a writ petition, claiming they were not the actual tenant and that the respondent could not seek eviction as they only owned a partial share of the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had unequivocally admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in their written reply before the Rent Tribunal. Furthermore, under Section 2(c) of the Act of 2001, ownership is not a strict requirement for the definition of 'landlord', and a single co-owner is competent to maintain an eviction suit against a tenant.
Issues: Whether a co-owner can file an eviction suit independently and whether the petitioner is estopped from denying the landlord-tenant relationship after admitting the same in pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an admitted fact does not require proof. A landlord under the Act includes any person receiving rent, and a co-owner is legally competent to file for eviction without joining other co-owners, provided there is no objection from them.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramji Lal Gupta
For the Respondents: Manak Chand Jain
Judgment
| Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments | 18.12.2025 |
| Date on which the judgment was reserved | 18.12.2025 |
| Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced | Full Judgment |
| Date of pronouncement | 06.01.2026 |
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal No.2 (Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.5), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, as well as the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a rent application was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting, nuisance, causing damage to the rented premises, and bona fide requirement of the landlord. Apart from the aforesaid grounds, it was also pleaded that the petitioner-tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and, therefore, was liable to be evicted.
3. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide judgment dated 14.09.2022, allowed the rent application and granted a certificate of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord and availability of suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner-tenant.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I; however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2025.
5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Tribunals below, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord was required to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence and could not be permitted to take advantage of any alleged weakness in the defence of the petitioner. The burden to establish the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship squarely lay upon the respondent, which the respondent failed to discharge.
6.1. According to the petitioner, the respondent-landlord is the owner of only 1/4th share in the suit property and, therefore, the certificate of eviction passed in respect of the entire premises is ex facie perverse, illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Tribunal. It was urged that no decree for eviction of the whole property could have been passed at the instance of a co-sharer without establishing exclusive ownership or authority from the remaining co-owners.
6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that merely payment of rent cannot establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore prayed that the judgment passed by both the learned Courts below may be quashed and set aside and the rent application of the respondent may be dismissed.
6.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original petition was filed against three respondents namely; M/s M.D. Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Dashrath Singh Shekhawat & Ajeet Singh Shekhawat. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the rent application, non-applicants No.2 & 3; Dashrath Singh Shekhawat and Ajeet Singh Shekhawat, respectively were deleted from the array of the parties. He submits that actually Dashrath Singh Shekhawat and Ajeet Singh Shekhawat were the tenants and therefore, there is no landlord tenant relationship between the present petitioner and the respondent.
6.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments:
(i) Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority vs M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills; AIR 1998 SC 2352.
(ii) Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors.;1987 (2) SCC 555.
(iii) Harshvardhan Chokkani vs Bhupendra N. Patel & Ors.; 2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments 95 (SC).
(iv) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs.; AIR 2008 SC 2139.
(v) Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs Man
