Dismissed

Smt.Brij Bala Pareek v. Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2019CW/3997/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Rent Tribunal's order dismissing an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. The Court held the petitioner was not a necessary party and refused to exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the dismissal of the impleadment application was dismissed.

Smt.Brij Bala Pareek Vs Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3997/2006

¶3

Smt. Brij Bala Pareek aged 35 years, wife of Shri K.B. Pareek, B.K. Trading Company, in front of Ashoka Talkies, Bapu Bazar, Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Rent Tribunal, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶7

Munna Babu Son of Panna Lal, by caste Mahajan, aged 50 years, resident of Mohalla Johara, Nai Sarak, Alwar.

¶8

Kul Bhusan Pareek S/o late Shri Bhagwat Singh, by caste Pareek Brahaman Mandir Shri Sitaramji Maharaj, Bapu Bazar, Malakhera Darwaja, Alwar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Pareek, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Saket Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Mathur, Adv. on behalf of Mr. R.K. Mathur, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶12

Order

¶13

03/12/2019

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.28.04.2006 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-Munna Babu filed an application under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act before the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the respondent No.3 has forcibly dispossessed him from the property in dispute on 31.07.2003 and prayed for restoration of possession of the property in dispute.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3997/2006]

¶18

During pendency of the said application the petitioner who is wife of the original landlord filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for impleading her as party respondent in the application. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dt.28.04.2006. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.28.04.2006.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has taken the property in dispute on rent on 06.08.2003, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings.

¶20

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is wife of the original landlord i.e. respondent No.3 and the application has been filed just to delay the proceeding pending before the Rent Tribunal.

¶21

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the application under Section 11 has been filed by the respondent No.2 before the Rent Tribunal for restoration of possession of the property in dispute from where he has been forcibly dispossessed by the original landlord-respondent No.3 who is husband of the present petitioner; secondly the Rent Tribunal has rightly used its discretion in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that she is wife of the original landlord and there is no possibility of taking the property on rent from her husband; thirdly in the facts & circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-3997/2006]

¶26

A copy of this order be immediately sent to the Rent

¶27

Tribunal, Alwar.

¶28

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶29

Ashish Kumar/49

Smt.Brij Bala Pareek v. Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Brij Bala Pareek v. Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Ors.

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

Bhawani Dutt and Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar and Ors.

Gopal Das Gupta Vs Nagar Nigam Jaipur and Ors.

Gopal Das Gupta Vs Nagar Nigam Jaipur and Ors.

Nawal Modani Vs Jatan Singh

Smt. Punam Mathur W/O Shri Mukul Shai Mathur, D/O Late Shri Suraj Prakash Mathur Vs Smt. Kalyani Dutt W/O Late Shri Jitendra Nath

Miss Arpita Upadhyay @ Ashi Upadhyay D/O Shri Vivek Upadhyay Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education