Dismissed

Shri Sunil v. Lrs. of Late Shri Jagdish S/O Shri Banshi Lal Samdani

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2024CW/9860/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing the Rent Tribunal to expedite an eviction hearing filed in 2018, arguing delay due to COVID and legal representative substitution. The Court refused, citing precedents against routine priority directions and noting no evidence of malafide delay.

What did the court decide?

Direciton to decide the eviction application at an early date was declined; petition dismissed.

Shri Sunil Vs Lrs. of Late Shri Jagdish S/O Shri… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26411]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9860/2024

¶4

Shri Sunil S/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh Dhariwal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 39-42, Sneh Villa, Arihant Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶5

Smt. Snehlata W/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh Dhariwal, Aged About 86 Years, R/o Nadi Mohalla, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶6

Smt. Sadhana D/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh Dhariwal, W/o Shri Vinod Mehta, Aged About 64 Years, R/o A-96, Nemi Nagar, Gandhipath, Near Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Smt. Leena D/o Late Shri Bhopal Singh Dhariwal, W/o Shri Sanjay Ji Bhandari, Aged About 62 Years, R/o B-93, Near Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Lrs. Of Late Shri Jagdish S/o Shri Banshi Lal Samdani, Aged About Adult, R/o Station Road, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶11

1. Smt. Seeta Devi W/o Late Shri Jagdish Samdani, Aged About Adult, R/o Nadi Mohalla, Near Badda Mandir, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶12

Anil S/o Late Shri Jagdish Samdani, Aged About Adult, R/ o Nadi Mohalla, Near Badda Mandir, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶13

Sunil S/o Late Shri Jagdish Samdani, Aged About Adult, R/o Nadi Mohalla, Near Badda Mandir, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pareek for Mr. Naman Mohnot

¶16

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶17

Order

¶18

02/07/2024

¶19

The present petition has been preferred with the prayer that the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara (wrongly mentioned as ‘Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan’) be directed to decide the eviction application as preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs at an early date.

[2024:RJ-JD:26411]

[CW-9860/2024]

(2 of 4)

In the opinion of this Court, in absence of any statistics regarding the institution, pending and disposal of the cases before the concerned Tribunal, no sweeping direction can be passed to decide a particular case on priority. Passing such order, in the opinion of this Court, would interfere with the cause list of the concerned Court/Tribunal and the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters.

¶24

As observed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) , it would be most inappropriate of the Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or great antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Therein, the Court further observed as under:

¶25

“Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest case and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expenses of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

¶26

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disability socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.”

[2024:RJ-JD:26411]

[CW-9860/2024]

(3 of 4)

A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge Small Causes & Ors.; 2011 (88) ALR 850 wherein the Court observed as under:

¶31

“We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those who are waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be countenanced.”

¶32

So far as the present matter is concerned, admittedly, the eviction application had been preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs in the year 2018, to be specific, on 12.07.2018. Service on the respondents was complete in the month of August 2018 and power on behalf of the respondents was filed on 24.08.2018. The reply to the petition was filed on 13.03.2019 which was permitted to be taken on record at the cost of Rs.500/-. The rejoinder was filed on 01.05.2019 by the petitioners and the issues were framed on the very next date i.e. 29.07.2019. On the very next date i.e. 03.10.2019, an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed on behalf of the petitioners. Since then, because of the Covid-19 situation, the application could not be heard and it is only on 30.09.2021 that the said application was

[2024:RJ-JD:26411]

[CW-9860/2024]

(4 of 4)

decided. The matter was then posted for plaintiffs’ evidence on 04.02.2022. The Presiding Officer being on leave for the next two days’, the matter was posted for 13.07.2022. On 13.07.2022, time was sought on behalf of the petitioners plaintiffs for filing of an appropriate application for substitution of the legal representatives of the respondent Jagdish who was reported to have expired. The said application was ultimately filed on 24.11.2022 and the matter proceeded for service on the legal representatives and the application under Order 22 Rules 4 & 9, CPC was ultimately decided on 01.12.2023. Since then, time for plaintiffs’ evidence was sought by counsel for the petitioners plaintiffs.

¶37

A bare perusal of the order sheets of the Tribunal (Annexure3) as placed on record makes it clear that the Tribunal is diligently proceeding with the proceedings. The order sheets nowhere reflect that the proceedings have been delayed inordinately or intentionally.

¶38

In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition and the same is hence, dismissed .

¶39

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶40

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶41

3-KashishS/-

Shri Sunil v. Lrs. of Late Shri Jagdish S/O Shri Banshi Lal Samdani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sunil v. Lrs. of Late Shri Jagdish S/O Shri Banshi Lal Samdani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Varsha Vs Manager

Khaju Mohd. Vs Anwar Ali

Smt. Sohni Devi Vs Bhanwarlal

Ganga Bai Vs M/S. Wonder Cement Ltd.

Kamla Vs Bheekidevi

Navratan Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan