Dismissed

Chagan Lal v. Mandir Shree Laxmi Narain Ji Andors

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2020CW/7007/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Rent Tribunal's rejection of an application by the original tenant's legal representative to file an affidavit. While rejecting interference under Article 227 regarding the evidentiary issue, the Court directed the Tribunal to swiftly dispose of the original eviction application, which had remained pending for over 13 years.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; however, the Rent Tribunal was directed to dispose of the original application pending before it as early as possible due to excessive delay.

Chagan Lal Vs Mandir Shree Laxmi Narain Ji Andors — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7007/2016

¶3

Chagan Lal S/o Sh. Suva Lal Mali Proprietor Jaipur Asbestos, Compound Mandir Thakurji Shree Laxmi Narain Ji, Laxminarainpuri, outside Surajpole Gate, Jaipur (Deceased during the pendency of suit)

¶4

Through L/Rs 1/3 Brij Kishore Sharma S/o Late Shri Chagan Lal by caste Mali aged about 43 years, R/o D-106, Anandpuri, Moti Dungari, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner Non-Applicant-Tenant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mandir Shree Laxmi Narain Ji Trust, Laxminarainpuri, outside Surajpole Gate, Jaipur through Mahant & Trustee Sh. Swami Trivikaramacharya, Mandir Thakur Shree Laxmi Narainji, Laxminarainpuri, outside Surajpole Gate, Jaipur.

¶8

…..Respondent-Applicant-Landlord 1/1 Smt. Ratan Devi W/o Late Chagan Lal Mali

¶9

1/2. Avadh Kishore S/o Late Chagan Lal Mali

¶10

Both residents of D-106, Anandpuri, Moti Dungari, Jaipur

¶11

1/3 Kamal Lata W/o Sh. Mohan Lal by caste Saini R/o House NO.l86, Subhash Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur

¶12

1/4. Jyoti W/o Sh. Ramji Lal R/o House NO.1, Chauhan Kutir, Tonk Road, Jaipur

¶13

1/5. Kanchan W/o Sh. Chandra Shekhar by caste Mali R/o 32-A, Lalpura Colony, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur

¶14

1/6. Kusum W/o Sh. Devran by caste Mali, R/o 4361, Sankhla Peeli Talai, Amer, District Jaipur

¶15

----Performa Respondents-Non Applicant-Tenant

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BB Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

02/01/2020

(2 of 4)

[CW-7007/2016]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionertenant (hereinafter ‘the tenant’) against the order dated 21.4.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by one of the Legal Representative of the original tenant for taking his affidavit on record has been dismissed.

¶23

Facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter ‘the landlord”) filed the application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 2001’) before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur against the original tenant Chagan Lal. The tenant filed the reply. During the pendency of the application, the original tenant Chagan Lal died and his LRs were taken on record. The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide its order dated 24.9.2013 allowed the application filed by the landlord. Being aggrieved therefrom, LRs of the original tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. The appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 24.3.2015 allowed the appeal; set-aside the order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal with the following directions:-

¶24

““i=koyh v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k dks bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr dh

¶25

tkrh gS fd os mHk;i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr lkf{k;ksa ds 'kiFki=ksa ij i{kdkjksa dh ftjg ys[kc) djrs gq, mHk;i{k dks lqudj izdj.k esa iqu% u;s fljs ls viuk fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA fo)ku v/khuLFk fdjk;k vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k vfoyEc bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr lfgr okil ykSVk;k tkosaA””

¶26

During the adjudication of the original application, as directed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, one of LR of the original tenant filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur stating that original tenant

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CW-7007/2016]

¶29

Chagan Lal submitted his affidavit in defence, but his crossexamination could not be done, therefore, the evidence of Chagan Lal was inadmissible. It was also stated that till the death of original tenant Chagan Lal, Braj Kishore (one of the LR of original tenant) was doing business with him, therefore he is having the complete knowledge of the facts of the case. It was stated that in support of the averments made in the reply, he is submitting his affidavit, which is equivalent to the affidavit submitted by his father, therefore, the same may be taken on record.

¶30

The landlord filed reply to the said application stating that the tenancy rights do not devolve. He prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the tenant

¶31

Heard. Considered.

¶32

I am of the considered view that the matter was remanded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal to the Rent Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh after recording the crossexamination of the parties on the affidavits of the witnesses. In case the tenant was allowed to file the affidavit afresh, it would tantamount to re-commence the trial, which was not the direction of the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The factum of death of the original plaintiff Chagan Lal was also before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, but no such prayer was made before the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

¶33

In this view of the matter, I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 21.4.2016. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CW-7007/2016]

¶36

However, taking into consideration the fact that the original application was filed before the Rent Tribunal in the year 2006 and 13 years have passed therefrom, whereas in terms of Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001, matters relating to landlord and tenant disputes are required to be decided within 240 days from the date of service of summons on the opposite party, the Rent Tribunal is directed to dispose of the pending original application as early as possible.

¶37

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶38

DK/34

Chagan Lal v. Mandir Shree Laxmi Narain Ji Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chagan Lal v. Mandir Shree Laxmi Narain Ji Andors

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

Jairam Narwal Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Susheela Kanwar and Others Vs Manoj Kumar Gurjar and Othrs

Smt. Prem W/O Sajjan Singh Vs Sumer Singh S/O Gulab Singh

Nem Prakash Khandaka HUF Vs Somani Trading Comp Andanr

The Tarikki Tibbi Society Vs Dr Parvej Akhtar Varsi and Anr.

Chauthmal @ Chauthuram Saini S/O Late Shri Lalaram Saini Vs Gopiram Saini S/O Late Shri Lalaram Saini