Disposed

Purshottam Das S/O Nanagram v. Sanjay Kumar Jain S/O Late Gambhirmal Jain

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2024CW/14089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner tenant preferred a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an impugned order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal denying permission to summon two witnesses for an eviction appeal. The petitioner sought to call the landlord's son to prove business necessity and another witness for an alleged oral payment. The court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to raise objections regarding n

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise objections before the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding non-production of the landlord's son.

Purshottam Das S/O Nanagram Vs Sanjay Kumar Jain S/O… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36708]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14089/2024

¶4

Purshottam Das S/o Nanagram, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of Dukan Shubham Jewellers, Bada Kuwa Ke Pass, Tonk Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant/Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sanjay Kumar Jain S/o Late Gambhirmal Jain, Resident Of Bada Takhta, Tonk Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent/Non-petitioner

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

02/09/2024

¶13

Petitioner-tenant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.05.2024 passed in Rent Appeal No.01/2023 by the Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Tonk declining the prayer of petitioner to summon two witnesses namely Rishabh Jain and Jagdish.

¶14

On behalf of respondent-landlord, counsel has put in appearance as Caveator.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

¶16

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionertenant that respondent-landlord filed an Eviction Petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in the year

[2024:RJ-JP:36708]

[CW-14089/2024]

(2 of 3)

2018 for necessity of the rented shop to his son Rishabh Jain but did not produce Rishabh Jain in evidence to prove his necessity. He submits that the necessity was alleged that Rishabh Jain shall carry on a garment business in the shop in question, therefore, his evidence is necessary to prove his necessity.

¶21

In respect of Jagdish, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in his presence, at the time of letting out the shop in question, a ‘Pagadi’ of an amount of Rs.2 lac was paid by the tenant to landlord but this fact was not indicated in the rent note dated 29.01.2013. Hence, Jagdish is also a material witness, who is required to be summoned.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has argued that the landlord-plaintiff himself has stepped in his evidence to prove the necessity and the present eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity and default in payment of rent. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 01.05.2023 has allowed the eviction petition and passed eviction certificate whereagainst the petitioner tenant has preferred appeal. He submits that at the appellate stage, petitioner tenant sought to summon both witnesses which is unwarranted and the Appellate Rent Tribunal has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in declining the prayer of petitioner, as such the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

¶23

After arguing the writ petition at length, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise objection before the

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:36708]

[CW-14089/2024]

Appellate Rent Tribunal, in respect of non-production of Rishabh Jain by the plaintiff-landlord to prove the necessity of the rented shop. If any such objection is raised, same shall be considered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

¶28

As far as summoning of witness Jagdish is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press his prayer.

¶29

Accordingly, with aforesaid liberty to petitioner and observations made hereinabove, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

TN/15

Purshottam Das S/O Nanagram v. Sanjay Kumar Jain S/O Late Gambhirmal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Das S/O Nanagram v. Sanjay Kumar Jain S/O Late Gambhirmal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar S/O Late Shri Komal Chand Vs District Supply Officer

Gopal Dutt Vyas S/O Sh. Jamna Bhallabh Vs Mahant Prem Bhallabh Late S/O Sh. Radha Bhallabhji

Banshidhar S/O Ruda Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Soni S/O Shri Ramdev Soni Vs Tikamchand Soni S/O Tarachand Soni

Ramchandra Chaudhary S/O Shri Badri Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Vs Vivek Rankawat S/O Shri Ashok Rankawat