Dismissed

Orienral Insurance Co. Ltd. and v. Chaitny Prakash Bansal andANR

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2008CW/885/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Rent Tribunal's order rejecting an application for framing additional issues. The High Court found no ground to interfere, noting the Tribunal correctly deferred judgment on statutory applicability until after cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations clarifying the Tribunal's obligations under the first proviso to Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act.

Orienral Insurance Co. Ltd. and Vs Chaitny Prakash… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.885/08
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chaitnya
Prakash Bansal & Ors.

¶4

Date of order : 4/2/2008.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶6

Shri Virendra Agarwal for the petitioner.
******

¶7

This writ petition is directed against

¶8

the order dated 2.11.2007, whereby the
Rent Tribunal rejected the application of
the petitioner for framing of additional
issues.

¶9

The original issue that was framed was
only to the effect that whether applicant

¶10

is entitled to mesne profit / use and
occupation charges in the sum of
Rs.28,0000/- per month during the pendency
of the proceedings. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has argued that petitioner
company is having paid up capital of more
than one crore, therefore the provisions

¶11

¶12

contained in Chapter 2 and 3 of the Rent
Control Act, 2001 are not applicable. This
was required to be examined by the learned
Tribunal at the threshold whereas the
Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's
objection has permitted cross examination
of the witnesses of the applicant.

¶13

Having considered the arguments and
perused the impugned order, it is evident
that the Tribunal in the self same order
has observed that the objection raised by
the petitioner could be decided even after

¶14

cross examination in view of the
provisions of Section 21 of the Rent
Control Act.

¶15

 Though the provisions of CPC as such
are not applicable to the proceedings
pending before the Rent Tribunal, but at
the same time the Tribunal has been given
the liberty to regulate is own procedure
subject to principles of natural justice.

¶16

¶17

It is therefore clarified that Tribunal
before deciding the main matter on merits
shall also decide the objections raised by
the petitioner as to non applicability of
provisions of Chapter I and II of the Rent
Control Act and applicability of
provisions of Transfer of Property Act. In
view of the first proviso to Section 18 of
the Rajasthan Rent Control Act which inter
aliaprovidesthatnotwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, in the areas to
which this Act extends, only the Rent
Tribunal and no Civil Court shall have the
jurisdiction to hear and decide the
petitions relating to disputes between
landlord and tenant but in deciding such
petitions to which provisions contained in
Chapter II and III of the said Act would
not apply, with due regard to the
provisions of Transfer of Properties Act,

¶18

¶19

1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any
other substantive law applicable to such
matter in the same manner in which such
law would have been applied had the
dispute been brought before a Civil Court
by way of suit.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid provision,

¶21

the Tribunal shall obviously consider the
fact and implication of the aforesaid
provision prior to deciding the matter on
merits.

¶22

I therefore do not find any good
ground to interfere with the order passed
the Tribunal.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of with

¶24

the aforesaid observations.

¶25

RS/

Orienral Insurance Co. Ltd. and v. Chaitny Prakash Bansal andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orienral Insurance Co. Ltd. and v. Chaitny Prakash Bansal andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramniwas Jat Vs State and Anr.

M/S Star Delta Transformers Lt Vs Chairman andMANAGING Director and

Subhash Chand Vs Shiv Shankar and Ors.

Kailash Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Satyendra Singh Jain Vs Ramsharan Sharma

Khushilal Vs District Judge Dholpur and Anr.