[2026:RJ-JD:12567]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4664/2026 Banshidhar S/o Late Shri Narayan Das, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Lakshmipura, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Arya Samaj, Barmer, Through Its President Mahendra Khatri, S/o Lekhraj, Resident Of Azad Chowk, Barmer, Tehsil And District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Sharda with Mr. Siddharth Karwasra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

13/03/2026

1. The present writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner–judgment debtor assailing the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge), Barmer in Execution Case No.04/2023 (Arya Samaj vs. Banshidhar), to the extent whereby, application submitted by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal was limited to eviction and revision of rent and did not contain any executable direction for recovery of arrears of rent. It is contended that the Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting recovery of alleged arrears which were neither quantified nor expressly decreed. It is further urged that since possession of the premises was already handed over in November, 2023, the execution proceedings ought not to have been continued thereafter.

4. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Hiralal Patni vs. Sri Kali Nath reported in AIR 1955 All 569

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–decree holder while supporting impugned order, submits that certificate/decree dated 13.04.2011 clearly determines the liability of the petitioner by revising the rent and specifying the date from which such revised rent becomes payable. It is contended that consequential monetary liability is, therefore, recoverable in execution proceedings. It is further submitted that said judgment and certificate became final, as the petitioner availed and exhausted all remedies available to challenge it under the law.

6. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the judgment and certificate dated 13.04.2011, the respondent initiated execution proceedings under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘Act of 2001’ hereinafter) on 25.04.2023, furnishing complete details of the outstanding dues. However, the petitioner neither filed any reply nor raised objections at the appropriate stage and instead, belatedly invoked Section 47 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. by filing an application on 29.01.2026, which has rightly been rejected by the Executing Court.

7. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 20(3) of the Act of 2001, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the event, the tenant fails to vacate the premises within the stipulated period from the issuance of the certificate for recovery of possession, the statute itself imposes a further liability upon such tenant to pay mesne profits at the rate of three times the rent as the premises let out for commercial purposes. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner continued in possession beyond the stipulated period, the respondent is legally entitled to recover the enhanced amount.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that once the rate of rent and the relevant period of liability stand determined by the Rent Tribunal, the certificate/decree cannot be regarded as merely declaratory. It remains executable notwithstanding that the exact amount requires arithmetical computation during execution. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:

i. Martin & H