Disposed

Manish Sharma v. Hansraj

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2016CW/12692/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction orders. Upon hearing, the Court observed an amicable consensus between parties to grant the tenant two years to vacate the premises, making eviction unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of on condition that the petitioner files an undertaking to vacate premises within two years, deposit arrears, and pay rent in advance.

Manish Sharma Vs Hansraj — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

SBCWP No.12692/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12692/2016

¶6

Manish Sharma vs. Hansraj

¶7

Date of Order ::: 5^th October, 2016

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Mr. S.K. Saksena along with Mr. Manish Sharma the petitioner in person. Mr. Reashm Bhargava, for the respondent.

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 13.11.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer along with order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer.

¶11

Mr. S.K. Saksena, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two courts below have committed error to order eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent Hansraj appeared as P.W.1 in the court and stated that the premises was let out by his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and she has been receiving rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perversity on the part of the two courts below is discernible, as two courts below ignored the fact that the petitioner had deposited the rent in the account of respondent Hansraj in pursuance of the notice received on 30.8.2005 from Smt. Shanti Devi mother of the respondent Hansraj. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the account in which rent was being deposited belonged to the respondent Hansraj, accepted by two courts below as landlord qua the petitioner tenant.

¶12

Mr. Raeshm Bhargava, the learned counsel for the respondent has read the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

¶13

This Court was not inclined to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and before this Court could deal with the arguments raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the petitioner

¶14

SBCWP No.12692/2016

¶15

¶16

Mr. Manish Sharma, present in person, has very fairly submitted that he will be satisfied in case sufficient time is granted to the petitioner tenant to make alternative arrangement.

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that he has been instructed by the landlord to amicably resolve the dispute and in case tenant seek time to make alternative arrangement same can be granted.

¶18

The learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments arrived at a broad consensus that in case two years time is granted to the petitioner to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord that will serve the needs of justice.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus arrived between the parties. Hence, on the joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, on the terms and conditions of the consensus arrived between the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by issuing following directions:

¶20

(i) That the petitioner shall file an undertaking before Rent Tribunal that he shall vacate the premises within two years from filing of the undertaking before the Rent Tribunal.

¶21

(ii) The petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Rent Tribunal on or before 19.10.2016.

¶22

(iii) The petitioner shall deposit entire arrears of rent, if due, along with 9% interest.

¶23

(iv) That the petitioner shall specifically state in the undertaking that they shall pay the rent in advance for each month on or before 7^th day of each month.

¶24

(v) In the undertaking, it shall also be specifically stated that in case the petitioner commit two consecutive defaults, the executing court shall proceed with the eviction of petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶25

(vi) In the undertaking to be furnished, the tenant shall specifically state that during the pendency of the period granted

¶26

SBCWP No.12692/2016

¶27

¶28

by the landlord, they shall not create any third party interest.

¶29

(vi) The petitioner shall also specifically state in the undertaking that they will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises in good condition to the landlord within two years commencing from 19.10.2016.

¶30

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶32

Mak/38

Manish Sharma v. Hansraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Sharma v. Hansraj

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

Deepak Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Radhey Shyam Vs Subhash Chand Meena and Others

Aslam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balveer Kaur and Others

Chetraj Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajwanti Devi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp