Dismissed

Dinesh Chand S/O Radheyshyam v. Govindnarayan S/O Gangadhar

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2023CW/6753/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition challenging the Remand order of the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that since the tenant was already entitled to half the shop in separate eviction proceedings, remanding the rent revision for only that half did not warrant judicial interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

No interference under Article 227; writ petition dismissed.

Dinesh Chand S/O Radheyshyam Vs Govindnarayan S/O… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

2023:RJ-JP:14054

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6753/2023

¶4

Dinesh Chand S/o Radheyshyam, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Gupteshwar Road Dausa C/o Mamodiya Medical Store, Lalsot Road, Sabji Mandi Dausa, Dist. Dausa.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Govindnarayan S/o Gangadhar, Aged About 87 Years, R/o Khateekan Mohalla Dausa, Tehsil Dausa, Dist. Dausa.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶11

Order

¶12

12/07/2023

¶13

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.04.2023, whereby, the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord was allowed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal and the matter was remanded back to the learned Rent Tribunal for deciding the same afresh.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed the application for revision of rent for the shop in dispute. The said application was dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 07.01.2022. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2022, the respondent-landlord filed a regular appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

¶15

[CW-6753/2023]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a separate eviction proceedings, the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has held that the petitioner-tenant is entitled to retain half of the disputed shop. Counsel further submits that the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has committed serious illegality in remanding the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal, as the respondent-landlord can file fresh application for revision of the rent for one half portion of the shop only.

¶19

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶20

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reason that the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has only remanded the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal, whereby, the petitioner-tenant can raise all his objections with regard to revision of rent for one half portion of the shop only and in a separate proceedings, the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has held that the petitioner-tenant is entitled to retain the half portion of the disputed shop.

¶21

In that view of the matter, since the matter has only been remanded back to the learned Rent Tribunal with regard to revision of rent, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed. All the pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶24

Upendra Pratap Singh /58

Dinesh Chand S/O Radheyshyam v. Govindnarayan S/O Gangadhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chand S/O Radheyshyam v. Govindnarayan S/O Gangadhar

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

Private Ayurved Nurse/Compounder Training Center Vs State of Rajasthan

Late Gajanand S/O Rameshwar Prasad Vs Devkaran S/O Rameshwar Prasad

Ajay Vijay Vargia Son of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan

Arcadia Academy, Senior Secondary Co-Educational English Medium School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Narayan S/O Sh. Bhagwan Sahay Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sh. Ram Singh S/O Late Sh. Naray Singh Vs Sh. Om Prakash Sharma S/O Late Sh. Ramnath Ji Khandal