High Court dismissed petitioner-tenant's writ petition challenging Rent Tribunal's order refusing to frame additional issue on property ownership, as landlord-tenant relationship was already established by tenant's admission.
Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; Rent Tribunal order affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21583/2017
Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Indra Jain, by Caste Jain, Aged About 46 Years, Resident of House No. 1193, Patni Bhawan, Churukan Ka Rasta, Chaukari Maudi Khana, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Anju Patni W/o Shri Sanjay Patni, by Caste Jain, Resident of House No. 1193, Patni Bhawan, Churukan Ka Rasta, Chaukari Maudi Khana, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
05/01/2018
Under challenge is the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner-tenant’s (hereinafter ‘tenant’) application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of an additional issue with regard to the ownership of the tenanted property and as to whether the applicant claiming to be the landlord was the owner thereof.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 01.10.2015.
The Rent Tribunal has held that issues could only be framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties to a lis. In that context the applicant having claimed to be landlord of the tenant and the tenant having admitted in the reply to the eviction petition to have paid the rent to the landlord, nothing remained to be determined with regard to the ownership of the tenanted property
(2 of 2)
[CW-21583/2017]
as in any event that question was irrelevant to the landlord-tenant relationship.
I am of the considered view that there is nothing perverse or illegal attributable the impugned order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal. In the reply to the eviction petition the tenant has indeed admitted to paying rent to the respondent-applicant-landlord consequent to which the landlord-tenant relationship stood admitted. In the circumstances, there was no necessity for the framing of additional issue as sought by the tenant as to whether the landlord was the owner of the tenanted property. It is well settled that the ownership of the property is quite irrelevant in the adjudication of the landlordtenant disputes where such relationship is established.
In the facts of the case the landlord-tenant relationship having been established on the admission of the tenant himself in the reply to the eviction petition, the Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the tenant for framing of an additional issues with regard to the landlord’s ownership of the tenanted property.
I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
Himanshu/28.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the framing of additional issue regarding ownership of property was necessary when landlord-tenant relationship was admitted.
Pawan Kumar
Smt. Anju Patni
AllokSharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
