Dismissed

Shubhkaran S/O Late Sultanaram v. Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2023CW/3699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a Section 21 application under the Rajasthan Control Act. The court held that rent tribunals cannot decide title if the tenancy relationship is admitted, and no interference is warranted under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition standing dismissed for the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissing the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001.

Shubhkaran S/O Late Sultanaram Vs Mahaveer Prasad… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/007809]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3699/2023

¶4

Shubhkaran S/o Late Sultanaram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Sultan Hotel, Gandhi Chowk, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka, Since Deceased

¶8

1/1. Smt. Rukmani Devi Widow Of Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶9

1/2. Motilal Gayanka S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶10

1/3. Mahesh Kumar Goyanka S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.) (Since Deceased)

¶11

1/3/1. Chanda Devi W/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyanka, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶12

1/3/2. Suryakant S/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyanka, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶13

1/3/3. Lakshmi Devi W/o Sandeep Agrawal, D/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyanka, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶14

1/3/4. Bhuvnesh Goyanka S/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyanka, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶15

1/3/5. Poonam Devi W/o Aadesh Agrawal D/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Goyanka, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶16

1/4. Kanhaiya Lal Goyanka S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba

(2 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/007809]

[CW-3699/2023]

Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Since Deceased)

¶21

1/4/1. Manju Devi Widow Of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Goyanka, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶22

1/4/2. Praveen Kumar, Aged About 13 Years

¶23

1/4/3. Abhishek, Aged About 12 Years

¶24

1/4/4. Karn Kumar Goyanka, Aged About 10 Years, All S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Goyanka R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan All Through Legal Representative Manju Devi Widow Of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Goyanka, R/o Fauj Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 25, Kasba Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu

¶25

1/5. Manju Devi D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka W/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 50 Years, Permanent R/o Chirawa, Jhunjhunu Presently Residing At Surya Vihar, Jhunjhunu Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶26

1/6. Saroj D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Lawanda, Tehsil Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar Presently Residing At Bangalore (Karnataka)

¶27

1/7. Kanta Devi D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka W/o Shri Ramotar Nalpuriya, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Shani Mandir Ke Pass, Khetari, Tehsil Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶28

1/8. Santosh Devi D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka W/o Shri Leeladhar Modi Nalpuriya, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Chidawa, Presently Residing At Purani Sabji Mandi Ke Pass, Jhunjhunu Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶29

1/9. Anju Devi D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Nalpuriya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shani Mandir Ke Pass, Khetari, Tehsil Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶30

1/10. Sanju Devi D/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bahal Tehsil Luharu, Distt. Bhiwani(Haryana)

¶31

Ramsingh S/o Late Shri Sultanaram, R/o Gas Plant Balaji Mandir, Burasar Ka Baas, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu Presently Residing At Sultan Hotel Gandhi

(3 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/007809]

[CW-3699/2023]

Chowk, Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶36

Parwati Devi W/o Bajrang, R/o Dhendhwa Presently Residing At Mandrella Bypass Road, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶37

Radha Devi W/o Ramnarayan Singh, Village Hamiri, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶38

Rukma Devi W/o Mahan, R/o Village Todi Dudiya, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶39

Reshmi W/o Pramod, R/o Badad Presently Residing At Bagadiya Restaurant, Station Road, Jhunjhunu

¶40

Gaurishankar Chopdar S/o Late Shri Pitharam Chopdar, R/o Bade Mandir Ke Pass, Khetano Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu(Raj.)Since Deceased

¶41

7/1. Smt. Savatri Devi Widow Of Gaurishankar, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Mohalla Chuna Chowk, Jhunjhunu(Raj.)

¶42

7/2. Sanjay Kumar Valiya, Aged About 34 Years, S/o Late Shri Gaurishankar

¶43

7/3. Sunil Kumar Valiya, Aged About 30 Years, S/o Late Shri Gaurishankar

¶44

7/4. Reeta Devi, Aged About 38 Years, D/o Late Shri Gaurishankar

¶45

7/5. Suman Devi, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Late Shri Gaurishankar

¶46

7/6. Sunita Devi D/o Late Shri Gaurishankar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bade Mandir Ke Pass, Khetano Ka Mohalla, Chuna Chowk, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶47

----Respondents

¶48

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya. For Respondent(s) :

¶49

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶50

Order

¶51

24/04/2023

¶52

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Appellate

[2023/RJJP/007809]

[CW-3699/2023]

(4 of 5)

Rent Tribunal whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001 was dismissed.

¶57

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-landlords filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal. The Rent Tribunal allowed the eviction application filed on behalf of the respondents-landlords vide its order dated 05.12.2019. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2019 the petitioner-tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu. During pendency of the appeal the petitioner-tenant filed application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001 which was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

¶58

Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed serious illegality in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. Counsel further submits that the documents which the petitioner-tenant wants to be called from the respondents-landlords with regard to ownership of the property in dispute and these information is necessary to decide the controversy involved in this matter.

¶59

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶60

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the Rent Tribunal or Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot decide the title of the property whereas the Rent Tribunal/Appellate Rent Tribunal has to see whether there is relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and in the

[2023/RJJP/007809]

[CW-3699/2023]

(5 of 5)

present matter the petitioner-tenant has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Tribunal, therefore, in my considered view, no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant and secondly, the petitioner-tenant has not filed any such application before the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal has given finding that the petitioner-tenant has admitted the tenancy between the tenant and landlord, therefore, in my considered view, no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶65

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶66

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶67

MG/75

Shubhkaran S/O Late Sultanaram v. Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubhkaran S/O Late Sultanaram v. Mahaveer Prasad Goyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak S/O Shri Netrapal Vs Smt Seema W/O Shri Deepak D/O Shri Mohan Singh

M/S Manthan Construction Company and Suppliers Vs State of Rajasthan

Mr Surendra Kumar Morya S/O Jagdish Morya Vs Mentor Home Loan India Ltd.

Mangilal S/O Shree Ramnarayan Vs Gram Panchayat Dei

Smt. Shamim W/O Late Jamil Vs Salim Khan S/O Aazam Khan

Kamla W/O Late Ramu Vs Ramesh S/O Natthi