HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8224/2020

Kanhaiya Lal Gwalani S/o Late Shri Lokumal Gwalani, Aged

About 68 Years, R/o Plot No. 1/4, Sector-1, Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur.

----Petitioner-Non Applicant-Landlord

Versus

Kamini Jha D/o Shri Kishan Gopal Jha, R/o Plot No. 1/4, Sector-

1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondent-Applicant-Paying Guest

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Dinesh Kala

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

04/09/2020

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated

22.07.2020 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal No.02, Jaipur

Metropolitan First has rejected the application filed by the

petitioner-non applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The facts in brief are that the respondent-applicant filed an

Original Application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent

Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) stating therein that

she was tenant in the premises, as prescribed in para 1 of the

application, belonging to the petitioner at the rent of Rs. 3200/-

per month. It was alleged that now the petitioner was trying to

forcible dispossess her from the rented premises and as such relief

of the permanent injunction was prayed for. The petitioner filed an

application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and

(2 of 3)

[CW-8224/2020]

Section 18 of the Act of 2001, raising objection as to

maintainability of the Original Application, alleging that no

relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as

the petitioner was running a paying guest hostel in which the

respondent was residing in a room as licensee on sharing basis.

The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Rent

Tribunal vide order its impugned herein.

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner,

drawing attention of this Court towards Section 22-B (1) of the Act

of 2001, submitted that in absence of any agreement in writing, it

cannot be held that relationship of landlord and tenant exists

between the parties inasmuch as the respondent has, in her

Original Application, claimed, the tenancy to be oral. He submitted

that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in rejecting the application

filed by him without appreciating the aforesaid vital aspect of the

matter.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

It is trite that while considering any application under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC, the averments contained in the plaint/Original

Application only are to be seen. The Original Application placed on

record at Annexure-1 for perusal of this Court nowhere reveals

that the suit property was taken on rent after the advent of the

Rajasthan Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 2017. Even, the

petitioner has not stated in his application that the respondent

was permitted to stay in the suit premises as paying guest after

the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2017. The provision of

Section 22-B (1) is very categorical so far as its applicability is

(3 of 3)

[CW-8224/2020]

concerned. It clearly provides that no person shall, after the

commencement of the Amendment Act, 2017, let or take on rent

any premises except by an agreement in writing and the

particulars of such agreement shall be communicated to the Rent

Authority by the landlord and tenant jointly, in the form specified

in Schedule-D. In absence of any averment in the Original

Application to draw an inference that the respondent has taken on

rent the suit premises after the commencement of the

Amendment Act, 2017, the contention raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that in absence of written agreement,

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be

said to exist, cannot be countenanced. This Court is satisfied from

perusal of the contents of the Original Application that it does not

attra