High Court dismissed this writ petition seeking quashing of eviction decrees. The Court held that since petitioners failed to appear in the lower tribunals, their claim remained unrebutted, leaving no case for interference with the ex-parte eviction orders.
No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
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. 18827/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
1/1. Jaishree D/o Chorulal and Meena Devi
1/2. Mahendra Maloo S/o Chorulal and Meena Devi
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Ballani For Respondents : Mr. Vinay Jain Mr. Darshan Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order
03/11/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.1-Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to
(2 of 7)
[CW-18827/2018]
be referred as ‘the Appellate Rent Tribunal’), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 25.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.2-Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rent Tribunal’) has been dismissed.
The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 25.05.2012 allowed the application under Section 9 (a), (e), (f), (i) and (k) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2001’) preferred on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 viz. Meena Devi and Prakash Chand (both now dead) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the eviction petitioners’) and passed a decree of eviction against the petitioners.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2004, the eviction petitioners had filed an application under Section 9 (a), (e), (f), (i) and (k) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of the respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu from the shop (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the shop in question’). In that application, it was claimed by eviction petitioners that the shop in question (situated in Bothara Mohalla, Bikaner) was rented out to respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and petitioner No.1-Badri Prasad at the rate of Rs.200/- per month in March 1985 for carrying out a business in the name of Ambika Trading Corporation. It was further claimed that up to 24.02.1993, respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and petitioner No.1-Badri Prasad paid the rent to them but thereafter they stopped the rent and sublet the shop in question to petitioner No.2-Leela Devi and petitioner No.3-Jugnu. It was also stated by eviction petitioners that they served a notice upon the present petitioners and respondent No.5 on 12.04.2004
(3 of 7) [CW-18827/2018]
claiming the due rent but the same was not paid and as the tenant withheld the rent for a period of more than four months, they are entitled to be evicted from the shop in question and the possession thereof be handed over to them. The eviction petitioners have also sought eviction of rented shops on the ground of bonafide necessity.
The said eviction petition was contested on behalf of tenant – respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar only and he filed the reply to that eviction petition, wherein he denied the relationship of ‘tenant and landlord’ between him and the eviction petitioners.
Rejoinder to the said reply was filed on behalf of eviction petitioners, however, the other respondents – present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu did not appear before the Rent Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed as many as seven issues, which are read as under :-
Þ¼1½ vk;k izkFkhZx.k fiNys rhu lky dk cdk;k fdjk;k 7200 :i;s vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d o nks ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS \
----izkFkhZ
¼a1&,½ vk;k izR;FkhZ la[;k ,d o nks oknxzLr ifjlj esa fdjk;snkj jgsa gS vkSj vthZnkj o izR;FkhZ la[;k ,d o nks ds e/; esa edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k LFkkfir jgs gS \
----izkFkhZ
¼2½ fd D;k vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dh fof/kor~ ekax ds ckotwn Hkh pkj ekg ls vf/kd dk fdjk;k ¼dqy jkf'k 7200 :i;s½ izkFkhZ dks fu;r le;kof/k esa vnk ugha fd;k vkSj bl izdkj D;k vizkFkhZ O;frØeh gS \
----izkFkhZ
(4 of 7) [CW-18827/2018]
¼3½ vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d o nks us nqdku vizkFkhZ la[;k rhu o pkj dks lcysV izkFkhZx.k dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk dh gS \
¼4½ vk;k vizkFkhZx.k nqdku esa dksbZ O;kikj ugha djrs gS o nqdku fiNys nks lky ls can gS \
¼5½ vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d o nks us izkFkhZx.k ds ekfydkuk gd o fdjk;snkjh ls badkj fd;k gS] ftldks izkFkhZx.k us oso o d.Mksu ugha fd;k gS \
¼6½ vk;k izdk”k pan vthZnkj la[;k nks dks nqdku ikiM+] Hkqft;k ds O;kikj gsrq fjtuscy ,oa cksukQkbZM vko”;drk gS \
The Rent Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their claim, has partly decided the issue Nos.(1) and (2) in favour of the eviction petitioners and against the respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu, however, partly decided against the eviction petitioners in relation to respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar.
The issue No.(1-A) was decided in favour of eviction petitioners as well as respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar, however, it was decided against the other respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu.
So far as issue No.(3) is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the eviction petitioners and against respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar.
So far as the issue No.(4) is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the eviction petitioners and against the
(5 of 7)
[CW-18827/2018]
respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and the other respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu.
The issue No.(5) was also decided in favour of the eviction petitioners.
The issue No.(6) regarding bonafide necessity was also decided in favour of the eviction petitioners.
The Rent Tribunal passed the eviction decree against the respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu vide judgment dated 25.05.2012.
Being aggrieved with the same, respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, however, the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.2018. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the judgments passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal has argued that both the tribunals have failed to appreciate that the eviction petitioners have failed to prove the relationship of ‘landlord and tenant’ between the parties. It is also submitted that though, eviction petitioner viz. Meena Devi filed the affidavit but failed to appear before the Rent Tribunal to give her evidence and in absence of the same, it cannot be said that the relationship of ‘landlord and tenant’ between them and the respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu has been established.
(6 of 7)
[CW-18827/2018]
So far as findings of both the tribunals in respect of other issues framed are concerned, no specific argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioners challenging the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since, the findings in relation to the issue No.(1-A) are perverse and are not based on any evidence, the judgments passed by both the tribunals are liable to be set aside as the eviction petitioners have failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by both the tribunals and argued that the Rent Tribunal has held that the eviction petitioners have failed to establish the relationship of ‘landlord and tenant’ between them and the respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar, however, their claim in respect of other tenants i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu, remain unrebutted as the above named three persons had not appeared before it to produce their defence.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the claim of the eviction petitioners has not been controverted before the Rent Tribunal, both the tribunals have not committed any illegality in deciding the issue No.(1-A) in favour of eviction petitioners as well as respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar, however, against other respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that at present the shop in question is not being used by any of the petitioners and is locked from last around more than a decade and
(7 of 7)
[CW-18827/2018]
they are doing their business in some other premises in the town of Bikaner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the fact that at present the shop in question is not being used by the petitioners; the same is locked from last so may years and the petitioners are operating their business in another shop in the town of Bikaner.
Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that since, the claim of the eviction petitioners against the present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu remain unrebutted as they failed to appear before the Rent Tribunal and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them, I don’t find any illegality in the judgments passed by both the tribunals.
Hence, no case for interference is made out.
The instant writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar S.No.34
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the writ petition against the eviction decree passed in absentia of the petitioners?
Whether the High Court can find no illegality in the judgments since the claim against the petitioners remained unrebutted due to their failure to appear?
Badri Prasad
Leela Devi
Jugnu
Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner
Rent Tribunal, Bikaner
Ravindra Kumar
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
