Allowed

Smt Kumkum Agarwal v. Om Prakash Gupta

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2018CW/538/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Rent Tribunal to decide a pending eviction application filed under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 within three months. It ordered adherence to Section 21(4) regarding adjournments and mandated summary disposal with costs for frivolous tenant applications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Rent Tribunal to decide the eviction application within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Smt Kumkum Agarwal Vs Om Prakash Gupta — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.538/2018

¶3

Smt. Kumkum Agarwal W/o Dr. Ram Manohar Agarwal, by Caste Mahajan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 22, A-B, In Front of Biscuit Factory, Heeda Ki Mori, Galta Road, Jaipur Through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Ram Manohar Agarwal

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Om Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 1332, Heeda Ki Mori, Near Gurudwara, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

17/01/2018

¶12

This petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur to decide at an early date the eviction application No.611/2009, Smt. Kumkum Agarwal Vs. Om Prakash Gupta filed under the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `2001 Act').

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applicant-landlord filed eviction application under Section 9 of the 2001 Act in the year 2009. After service, counsel for the non applicant appeared and filed reply on 4-1-2010. Thereafter the case is still pending. Counsel submitted that Section 15(5) of the 2001 Act provides for disposal of eviction application within 240 days from service of notice on opposite party. Reference has been made to Section 21(4) of the 2001 Act which provides that

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CW-538/2018]

¶16

adjournment by the Rent Tribunal can be granted only on an application in writing therefor decided by a reasoned order. Yet adjournments are granted on the mere askance. And the nonapplicant-tenant resorts to frivolous applications to stall the progress in the eviction petition.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material available on record as also the provisions of the 2001 Act, I find that the prayer sought for is reasonable. The Rent Tribunal is directed to expeditiously decide the application filed by the petitioner and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In the process, the provisions of Section 21(4) of the 2001 Act be adhered to. It is further directed that in the event of filing of frivolous application the same be decided on the same day or the following day by a reasoned and speaking order, and when necessary cost be also imposed as a measure of regulation of court proceedings.

¶18

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶19

(ALOK SHARMA) J.

¶20

Himanshu/37

Smt Kumkum Agarwal v. Om Prakash Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kumkum Agarwal v. Om Prakash Gupta

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

Ram Narayan Vs Birdhi Chand Lakhotiya and Ors.

Gopal Ram and Others Vs Ishwar Dayal and Others

Basanti Bai and Ors. Vs Kanhaiya Lal

Smt Kusumlata Rawat Vs M/S Ghiyas and Anr.

Smt Vidhya Devi and Ors. Vs Hajari Lal

Chatrabhan Singh Vs Devi Sharan and Others