1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

ORDER

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11606/2010)

1. Smt. Krishna Bhaseen w/o late Sh. Badrinath Bhaseen R/o 7/10, Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer.

2. Sh. Manish S/o late Sh. Late Sh. Badrinath Bhaseen R/o 7/10, Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer.

--- petitioners/ Non-applicants

versus

1. the Appellate Rent Tribunal Ajmer.

2. Smt. Shail Bhargava w/o late Sh. Amarnath Bhargava, aged 66 years R/o 1/10, Sardar Patel

Marg, Ajmer.

3. Smt. Preeti Malik W/o Sh. Narendra Malik, D/o Sh. Amarnath Bhargava aged 43 yrs., R/o !/10,

Sardar Patel Marg, Ajmer.

4. Puneet Bhargava S/o late Sh. Amarnath Bhargava aged 37 yrs., R/o 1/10, Sardar Patel Marg

Ajmer through natural guardian mother Smt. Shail Bhargava.

5. Sh. Prameet Bhargava S/o late Sh. Amarnath Bhargava aged 36 yrs. R/o 1/10, Sardar Patel

Marg, Ajmer.

--- Respondents/ Applicant.

Date of Order:

April 19, 2017.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, for the petitioner.

Ms. Preeti Malik, respondent No.3 in person.

BY THE COURT:

REPORTABLE

The Rent Tribunal Ajmer (hereinafter the Tribunal’) vide

judgment dated 26-7-2005 issued a certificate of possession in

favour of the respondent-landlord (hereafter `the landlord’) and an

order of eviction against the petitioner-tenants (hereinafter `the

tenants’) on the ground of the tenants having defaulted in payment

2

of rent for the period from 1-7-1999 to 31-12-2003. The tenant’s

appeal thereagainst before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer

(hereinafter `the Appellate Tribunal’) was dismissed on 12-4-2010.

Hence this petition.

It is not in dispute that a landlord tenant relationship obtains

in the instant case, the late father of the tenant having been inducted

as such by the late father of the landlord on or about 1-3-1981. It is

also not in dispute that despite a registered AD notice in terms of the

provisos to Section 9(a) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter

the Act of 2001’) sent on 19-9-2003 by the landlord requiring the

tenants to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1-2-1996 to 31-

8-2003 received by the tenant on 23-9-2003 the arrears of rent

were not deposited in the designated bank account of the landlord.

Instead the plea taken by the tenants as the LRs of the erstwhile

tenant Badrinath was that they had deposited on 1-7-2003 the rent

upto 31-12-2003 with the court of Munsif East Ajmer in case

No.22/1996 in proceedings initiated on 15-5-1996 by the late

Badrinath, under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of

Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter `the Act of 1950’), and hence

were not in default on rent and no arrears were payable.

The Rent Tribunal on the tenants' defence before it considered

their documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 which they asserted evidenced

3

deposit of due rent upto 31-12-2003 with the Munisf (East) Ajmer

(Case No.22/1996) in proceedings under Section 19A of the Act of

1950. It however came to a conclusion that there was no evidence

laid by the tenants that following the death of erstwhile tenant

Badrinath on 24-6-1999 his LRs had been substituted, or

vakalatnama filed on their behalf to continue proceedings under

Section 19A of the Act of 1950. The Tribunal further held that the

purported deposit of rent with the court of Munsif (East) Ajmer

under Section 19A of the Act of 1950, was not from the evidence

before it preceded by the essential preconditions of tender of rent by

a money order (which was refused) or an unsuccessful attempt by

the tenants through registered notice to elicit the landlord’s bank

account where the deposit of rent could be made. It was held that in

this view of the matter the purported deposit of rent under Section

19A of the Act of 1950 with the court of Munsif (East) Ajmer upto

31-8-2003 was neither valid nor legal. The Tribunal thereafter

noted that despite the registered AD notice of 19-9-2003 (Ex.5)

admittedly receipted and acknowledged by the