Dismissed

President Bahujan Smajvadi Party Unit Badnore v. Smt. Sita Devi

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2021CW/2971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ challenging a temporary injunction in a landlord-tenant dispute, holding that a landlord cannot evict a tenant by force and must follow due process of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

President Bahujan Smajvadi Party Unit Badnore Vs Smt… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2971/2021

¶3

President Bahujan Smajvadi Party Unit Badnore, Panchayat Samiti Tehsil Badnore, Dist. Bhilwara. Through Ramswaroop Khatik S/o Shri Sohan Ji (President), Aged 42 Years, R/o Badnore Dist. Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Sita Devi W/o Shri Onkarlalji Mali, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimalee Mr. M.L. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. V. D. Vaishnav

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

06/12/2021

¶12

The matter comes up on Board for consideration of Second Stay Application. However, having regard to the fact that controversy lies in a narrow compass, the matter was finally heard, with the consent of the parties.

¶13

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.02.2021, passed by Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), vide which the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant has been allwoed by the Appellate Court.

¶14

Precisely stated, the facts are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for injunction, inter alia, stating that she apprehended that the defendant (petitioner herein) would forcefully throw her out of the shop that had been let out to her.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-2971/2021]

¶17

Alongwith the suit for injunction so filed, the respondent had also filed an application for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Asind, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), vide its order dated 21.01.2021.

¶18

The respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal against such order of the trial Court, which appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Court with detailed reasons and after adjudication of the material available on record.

¶19

The Appellate Court found that the appellant-plaintiff had a prima facie case in her favour inasmuch as, there existed a valid rent agreement and thus, there was a relationship of tenant and landlord. The Appellate Court observed that as to whether there is violation of the terms of the rent agreement or not is a question of evidence and unless such question and other questions involved in the suit are determined, the defendant (petitioner herein) cannot be permitted to evict the plaintiff (respondent herein) by adopting forceful means.

¶20

It is the case of the respondent that the trial Court had reserved the order on application for temporary injunction on 08.01.2021 and before the application for temporary injunction could be finally decided, the petitioner had forcibly taken possession of the shop in question while breaking open the lock and the door.

¶21

The Appellate Court has recorded a finding about the manner in which the possession of the shop has been taken and, thus, passed an order in the form of mandatory injunction directing the defendant (petitioner herein) to hand-over the possession of the shop to the plaintiff (respondent herein).

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-2971/2021]

¶24

In a country governed by rule of law, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take possession of the shop in the manner that has been done. Concededly, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, a tenant can be evicted only by adopting due process of law.

¶25

In the opinion of this Court, merely because a notice of termination of agreement has been issued, the same does not give a license in the hands of the landlord to eject the tenant by forceful means or by muscle power. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 09.02.2021, passed by the Appellate Court, by which the petitioner has been asked to handover the possession of the shop in question back to the plaintiff.

¶26

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

While dismissing the petition, it may be clarified that this Court has not made any observation regarding merit of the case. The suit filed by the respondent shall be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the contention and evidence of the rival parties.

¶28

Needless to observe that the petitioner-landlord shall be free to institute appropriate suit/petition for eviction of the respondenttenant.

¶29

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶31

220-skm/-

President Bahujan Smajvadi Party Unit Badnore v. Smt. Sita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

President Bahujan Smajvadi Party Unit Badnore v. Smt. Sita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanaveer Singh Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Singh Vs M/S Padmawati Art Creation Pvt. Ltd.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohar Lal Pamech Vs Neelkanth Fertility and Women Care Hospital Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Hpcl Rajasthan Refinery Ltd. Vs Indra Singh

Shri Amrit Lal Vs Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal