Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal in a rent dispute. The Court found no perversity or illegality and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition is dismissed and pending applications are disposed of.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946/2020
Smt. Gayatri Singh Tomar W/o Shri Hakim Singh Tomar, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Apartment, Plot No. B-22, Susheelpura, Sodala, Jaipur And Choice Beauty Parlar, Shop As Situated At Plot No.177, Kanwar Nagar, Rajamal Ka Talab, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Kumari Bhawana D/o Late Shri Khattumal Varyani, Resident Of Plot No. 177, Kanwar Nagar, Rajamal Ka Talab, Jaipur (Raj.), At Present Address - Marfat Meena Fashions, Shop No. 39, Commercial Street, Bangalore.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma on behalf of Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
14/08/2023
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.91/2019 affirming the judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in Original Application No.714/2008, whereby the Rent Tribunal determined the rent and ordered the non-applicant-tenant to handover the possession of the suit premises to the applicant-landlord within a period of six months.
Counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submits that the orders of the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal are
[CW-2946/2020]
(2 of 2)
not sustainable because both the Courts have not taken into consideration the matter of the suspect that the applicant is not landlord and under Sections 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, only the landlord can file an application for eviction. Counsel further submits that the findings of the Tribunal below are contrary to the evidence available on record.
After arguing at some length, counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner-tenant has already vacated the rented premises in compliance of the order of the Tribunal and he also submits that the petitioner is not in touch with him since long.
Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal.
There are concurrent findings of both the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner has failed to point out the perversity and illegality in the orders passed by the Tribunals. Since, there is no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Tribunal and so also the fact that the petitioner has already vacated the premises, hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed and the pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Seema/252
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Tribunal erred in failing to consider that the applicant may not be the landlord under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the orders of the rent tribunals.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Gayatri Singh Tomar
Kumari Bhawana D/o Late Shri Khattumal Varyani
Ganesh Ram Meena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
