The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an objection filed under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001, during execution proceedings in a rent tribunal case involving an original tenant's eviction.
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 AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10522/2022
Kamal Bhati S/o Shri Khem Chand Bhati, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Ghanchi, R/o Plot No. 6, Veer Bhawan Shobawaton Ki Dhani, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order
23/09/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rent Tribunal’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2001’) in execution proceedings has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has filed an eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal for eviction of tenant (respondent No.2 in this writ petition) on the ground of default of payment and material change in the rented premises. The said eviction petition came to be allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2021 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and a recovery certificate was also issued,
(2 of 2)
[CW-10522/2022]
however, when the respondent No.2 did not vacate the premises in question as per the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal, an application was preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 before the Rent Tribunal and execution proceedings are going on.
The petitioner has filed an objection under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 with a prayer to cross examine the land lord as well the original tenant – respondent No.2 while claiming that he is the tenant in the rented premises and as eviction decree is not against him, therefore, he could not be dispossessed from the rented premises without following due procedure of law. The Rent Tribunal after taking into consideration the objection filed by the petitioner has rejected the application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 vide impugned order.
While rejecting the application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has failed to prove that the premises in question were rented to him by the landlord. It is also observed by the Rent Tribunal that no rent deed or receipt of payment of rent has been produced by the petitioner. The Rent Tribunal has further observed that since the petitioner has failed to prove his tenancy, the application filed by him under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 cannot be allowed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going though the material available on record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
33-Arun/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to intervention against eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord's original tenant.
Whether the petitioner could claim tenancy to prevent dispossession without producing rent deed or proof of payment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamal Bhati
Chandra Shekhar Gupta
Shyam Sunder Rajawat
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
