Dismissed

Parasram Bhodwani and Anr. v. Devidas Sukhwani and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2014CW/9530/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash the dismissal of an application seeking to become parties in a pending rent case by persons claiming tenancy rights. The court held the lower court's order was justified, dismissing the application and the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The stay petition and the main writ petition were dismissed with no copy sent to the Rent Tribunal by the court order itself.

Parasram Bhodwani and Anr. Vs Devidas Sukhwani and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9530/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

Parasram Bhodwani vs. Devidas Sukhwani & anr. & ors.

¶6

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9530/2014 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 9.7.2014 passed by Judge,Rent Tribunal, Kota in Rent Application No. 20/2009-Devidas Sukhwani v. Harish Kumar & ors.

¶7

Date of Order: 14.11.2014.

¶8

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN,J.

¶9

Mr. A.K.Gupta for the petitioners Mr. Naseemuddin Quazi for the non-petitioners.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

Non-petitioners no.1 to 3 had filed an application (Rent Appliction No.20/2009 titled as Devidas vs. Harish Kumar & ors.) for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against non-petitioners no. 4 to 6 in the Rent Tribunal, Kota. In that case, an application was filed by petitioners Parasram and Bhajan under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC to become a party but that application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota by the impugned order dated 9.7.2014.

¶12

The order dated 9.7.2014 of Rent Tribunal, Kota has been challenged in this petition by petitioners Parasram and Bhajan. They claimed to be tenants in possession of the disputed shop in question. Non-petitioners no. 1 to 3 had mentioned in the application for ejectment that original tenant was Gopi Chand and after his death,

¶13

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9530/2014

¶14

¶15

his three sons, Harish Kumar (non-petitioner no.4), Tara Chand (nonpetitioner no.5) and Mahesh Kumar (non-petitioner no.6) allegedly came into the shoes of the tenant and so the application for ejectment was filed against those three persons. It was mentioned in the application that the said tenants have unauthorisedly sub-letted the suit premises to Parasram and Bhajan, who are petitioners before us. On the other hand, petitioners claimed to be the real tenants after the death of Gopi Chand and they refused to be called a sub-tenant. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that their livelihood is totally dependent on the earnings from the shop in question.

¶16

I have heard arguments of both the parties. Petitioners Parasram and Bhajan have produced not a single document on the basis of which they could have been called a tenant in the suit premises. Non-petitioners no. 1 to 3 have initiated the proceedings for ejectment against non-petitioners no. 4 to 6 only and if nonpetitioners no. 1 to 3 do not want to seek any relief against petitioners no. 1 and 2 in those proceedings, then the petitioners cannot forcibly become parties to the proceedings. No doubt, if the petitioners are in possession of the suit premises, then nonpetitioners no. 1 to 3 will be able to oust them only by due process of law.

¶17

The petitioner has submitted the following ruling:-

¶18

Amrit Lal & ors. v. Smt. Sohan Kumari, 2008 CJ(Rent Control) 376

¶19

The above ruling of the Rajasthan High Court is not much relevant to the facts of the present case and thus, it does not help

¶20

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9530/2014

¶21

¶22

the cause of the petitioners.

¶23

I have perused the copy of the original application of ejectment filed by Devi Das and others. I have perused the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners and I have also perused the copy of the reply which was filed by Devidas and others. I am of the firm view that the impugned order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota is perfectly justified order. At the stage of final arguments in the rent case which was pending in the Rent Tribunal, the petitioners have tried to intervene the proceedings which may be an act of collusion also with non-petitioners no. 4 to 6.

¶24

Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and hence this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India deserves dismissal, which is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Rent Tribunal, Kota immediately by speed post.

¶25

( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

¶26

mlt.

Parasram Bhodwani and Anr. v. Devidas Sukhwani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasram Bhodwani and Anr. v. Devidas Sukhwani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Vs Civil Judge S D and Ors.

Smt Rameshwari Devi Vs Girdhari Lal

Kishan Lal Meena and Others Vs Gyan Chan Alias Gyana

Om Prakash Saini Vs Shri Swaroop Govind Pareek

Smt Savitri Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mahima Real Estate Pvt. and Anr. Vs D S Kochar and Ors.