Umesh Jain and Anr. Vs Rajmal Jain

1

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

¶3

ORDER

¶4

SB Civil Writ Petition No.1526/2015
Umesh Jain & Anr. v. Rajmal Jain

¶5

Date of Order

¶6

: 25.2.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶8

Mr.R.K Daga for the petitioner/s
Mr. Ashok Mehtaappears for the respondent

¶9

In considering a challenge to the

¶10

Judgment dated 13.1.2010 passed by the Rent
Tribunal, Jaipur, the Appellate Rent Tribunal
in its judgment dated 9.1.2015 has held that
subsequent events as sought to be brought on
record by the appellant, now the petitioner in
this petition could not be taken into
consideration while deciding the appeal and
only the state of affairs as reflected in the
pleading of the parties at the commencement of
the lis could be considered while deciding the
appeal. The petitioner non-applicant tenant
is aggrieved. Hence this petition.

¶11

Mr. R.K Daga counsel appearing for
thepetitionernon-applicant-tenant
(hereinafter 'the non-applicant tenant')
submits that the aforesaid legal premise on
which the non-applicant tenant's appeal was

¶12

2

¶13

inter-alia dismissed by the Appellate Rent
Tribunal is obviously an incorrect view and
contrary to the enunciation of law by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar
Nath Agarwal (dead) & Anr. Vs. Dhanraj Devi
(dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. (2004)8 SCC 76.

¶14

Mr. Ashok Mehta counsel appearing for

¶15

the respondent-applicant-landlord (hereinafter
'the applicant-landlord') fairly submits that
the statement of law aforesaid by the
Appellate Rent Tribunal is incorrect, but
states that yet even on the additional
evidence filed by the non-applicant tenant
purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in
the course of appeal, the case of the
applicant-landlord for the eviction of the
tenant from the tenanted premises for the
bonafide and reasonable necessity for the
business requirement of his son could not be
dislocated. He submits that in this view of
the matter this Court should not allow the
misstatement of law by the Appellate Tribunal
to entail remand of the matter to the
Appellate Tribunal as it would occasion
further delay in adjudication of the eviction
which was first filed in 2004. Counsel

¶16

3

¶17

submitted that the additional evidence sought
to be relied on by the non-applicant tenant be
considered by this Court in the interest of
justice for expedited disposal.

¶18

Having heard counsel for the non-

¶19

applicant-tenant, I am of the considered view
that it is not for this Court to speculate as

¶20

to what will be the effect of the

¶21

consideration of the additional evidence filed
by the non-applicant-tenant in the course of
the appeal or to itself consider such
evidence in this petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.

¶22

circumstances obtaining, the matter needs to
be remanded to the Appellate Rent Tribunal for
a re-hearing of the non-applicant-tenant's
appeal limited to taking into consideration
the effect of the evidence filed by him with
an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. An
affidavit in evidence confined to the evidence
referred to in the application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC for taking on record substantial
events, but no more, be filed by the non-
applicant tenant within one week from today.
If such affidavit is not filed, the right to

¶23

4

¶24

lead evidence on subsequent event/s in issue
shall be closed for the non-applicant tenant.
The applicant-landlord would be entitled to
the cross-examination of the non-applicant
tenant on the additional affidavit, if so
filed by him and also, if warranted, at his
option to lead further rebuttal evidence.

¶25

Consequently this writ petition is
allowed to the limited extent detailed here-
in-above and the matter is remanded to the
Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur to be disposed
of afresh as directed within a period of two
months from the receipt of a certified copy of
the Court's order. To facilitate compliance,
counsel for the non-applicant tenant states
and agrees that no adjournment on any count
whatsoever will be sought before the Appellate
Rent Tribunal.

¶26

It is expected of the Appellate Rent
Tribunal, Jaipur to hear the appeal on day to
day basis as the underlying eviction petition
was filed over a decade ago i.e in the year
2004 under the Act of 2001 which prescribes a
summary procedure with the clear intent of
early disposal of landlord tenant disputes.
Both the parties are directed to appear before

¶27

5

¶28

the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur on
12.3.2015.

¶29

It is also agreed by the counsel for
the petitioner non-applicant tenant that as
per section 20(3) of the Rajathan Rent Control
Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') the
non-applicant tenant would be liable to pay
mesne profits at the rate of three times of
the revised rent-six months following the
judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal. As the
non-applicant tenant is stated to have paid
the amount of revised rent, the differential
after after adjusting for the amount already
paid, be deposited in the Bank Account of the
respondent applicant landlord within one month
from today.

¶30

The writ petition stands accordingly
disposed of.

¶31

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶32

Sharma NK

¶33

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been
incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶34

NK Sharma, Sr.P.A

Umesh Jain and Anr. v. Rajmal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Jain and Anr. v. Rajmal Jain

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

Shri Shiv Charan Vs R S Sharma and Another

Omprakash and Ors. Vs Syan Swaroop andORS

Balram Meena Vs Raj University of Health Sci Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Meena Vs Shri P K Goyal and Others

Mamkori Vs State

Pawan Kumar Parnami Vs Narayan Das