Allowed

Sattewalon Ki Dharmashala v. Parmanand Advocate and Anr.

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2024CW/1912/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order dismissing an application to substitute a newly elected Secretary of a trust as the authorized representative in an eviction suit. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Rent Tribunal to allow the application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 29.10.2009 was quashed, and the application to substitute the newly elected Secretary was allowed.

Sattewalon Ki Dharmashala Vs Parmanand Advocate and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:18547]

¶2

2HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1912/2010

¶4

Sattewalon Ki Dharamshala, A Registered Trust, Through Its Secretary Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Son of Shri Ram Kumar Goyal, aged about 47 years, R/o Trust Sattewalon Ki Dharamshala, Between Shop No. 154-155, Bapu Bazar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶6

Versus

¶7

Parmanand Advocate, Shop No. 2, Sattewalon Ki Dharamshala, Bapu Bazar, Jaipur.

¶8

…..Respondent/Defendant

¶9

Newly Constructed Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

¶10

---Proforma-Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

22/04/2024

¶15

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal-II, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, “the learned Rent Tribunal”) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (for brevity, “the applicant”) for substitution of its authorized representative, i.e., Secretary, has been dismissed.

¶16

The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application against the respondent no.1/defendant (for brevity, “the defendant”) under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “the Act of 2001”) seeking his eviction

[2024:RJ-JP:18547]

[CW-1912/2010]

(2 of 3)

through its the then Secretary Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jain. During its pendency, the applicant filed an application stating therein that in the election of the applicant-trust on 25.08.2006, new Secretary Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal has been elected in place of its erstwhile Secretary Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jain. It was prayed that the newly elected Secretary be substituted in place of the erstwhile Secretary. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned dated 29.10.2009.

¶21

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of election of the new Secretary, it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Tribunal to have substituted him in place of the erstwhile Secretary. Learned counsel categorically states that the newly elected Secretary is continuing as Secretary of the applicant-trust till date. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 29.10.2009 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by applicant-trust be allowed.

¶22

None for the defendant despite service.

¶23

Heard. Considered.

¶24

Indisputably, the eviction application has been filed by the registered trust and during its pendency, on account of fresh election of the trust conducted on 25.08.2006, in place of the erstwhile Secretary Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jain, new Secretary Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal has taken his place. In view thereof, the newly elected Secretary should have been substituted in place of the erstwhile Secretary of the applicant-trust and the learned Rent Tribunal erred in dismissing the application filed by the applicant.

¶25

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is quashed and

[2024:RJ-JP:18547]

[CW-1912/2010]

(3 of 3)

set aside and the application filed by the applicant-trust stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

Looking to the life of the litigation, the learned Rent Tribunal is requested to expedite its hearing.

¶31

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶32

Sudha/89

Sattewalon Ki Dharmashala v. Parmanand Advocate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattewalon Ki Dharmashala v. Parmanand Advocate and Anr.

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

Shankar Lal Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

R.P.Saxena Vs State

R.P.Saxena Vs State

Arjun Ram Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Nemi Chand Jain Vs the Honble Central Infor and Ors.

Pappu Alias Pyare Lal Vs District Judge and Ors.