Dismissed

Sanjay Bhasin S/O B.B. Bhasin v. Bismillah W/O Late Muneer Khan

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2022CW/3508/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a tenant challenging the dismissal of his application for submitting additional affidavits in an eviction proceeding was considered. The High Court found the applicant's delay intentional and dismissed the writ petition, declining to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and all pending applications are disposed of.

Sanjay Bhasin S/O B.B. Bhasin Vs Bismillah W/O Late… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3508/2021

¶3

Sanjay Bhasin S/o B.B. Bhasin, Aged About 50 Years, Proprietor M/s Friends Properties Shop No. 15/16, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner-Tenant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bismillah W/o Late Muneer Khan, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Plot No. A-33 Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent-Landlord

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Vishwas Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Faraz Hussain

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶10

Order

¶11

24/11/2022

¶12

Heard on application No.03/2022 filed for early listing of the matter.

¶13

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶14

By this writ petition, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to be as “the Tribunal”) whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for taking the affidavits of two witnesses on record was dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Landlord filed eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the Tribunal.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3508/2021]

¶18

After completion of the evidences of respondent-Landlord, the petitioner filed an application for taking his affidavit on record and submitted that due to inadvertence, the affidavit could not be filed along with the reply.

¶19

The said application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.03.2017 on payment of Rs. 1000/- as cost.

¶20

After completion of evidence of petitioner-tenant, he again filed an application for submitting the additional affidavits. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2021 hence, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner-tenant has disputed the ownership of the respondentLandlord.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, the affidavits could not be filed along with the reply.

¶22

Counsel for the respondent-Landlord opposed the writ petition.

¶23

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

The present writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the shop in dispute was taken on rent by the petitioner-tenant in the year 2000 and the petitioner-tenant has enjoyed the property for last 20 years; lastly, the petitioner deliberately did not file the affidavits along with the reply as well as at the time of filing of the first application, with regard to submission of the affidavits, and this action of the petitionertenant shows that the same has been done only to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-3508/2021]

¶27

In view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶29

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶30

AARZOO ARORA /42

Sanjay Bhasin S/O B.B. Bhasin v. Bismillah W/O Late Muneer Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhasin S/O B.B. Bhasin v. Bismillah W/O Late Muneer Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhlal Mali S/O Shri Motilal Vs Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag

Dilip Kumar Verma Son of Surendra Singh Verma Vs Shyam Bihari Swarnkar Son of Jagan Prasad Swarnkar

Ritesh Kumar Gupta Son of Sh. Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Priyanka Gupta Wife of Sh. Ritesh Kumar Gupta

Sunder Singh S/O Ram Singh Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sobhagmal Sakhlecha S/O Late Shri Mangal Chand Ji Sakhlecha Vs Sh. Kanhiyalal @ Kana S/O Sh. Jagdish Kansara (Thathera)

Cholamandalam Ms Gen Insurance Vs Kaushalyabai and Ors.