Disposed

Smt. Shanta Devi @ Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal v. Shri Parasmal S/O Late Shri Sualal Gothi

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2025CW/16856/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged an Appellate Rent Tribunal order fixing monthly occupational charges at Rs.28,000 based on a rent agreement for a larger shop in the same vicinity. The High Court found the amount on the higher side and modified it to Rs.25,000 per month, directing adjustment of excess payment and expeditious disposal of the pending appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Shanta Devi @ Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Nemichand… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:16835]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16856/2024

¶5

Smt. Shanta Devi @ Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Behind Lodha School, Vitthal Basti, Outside Nehru Gate, Beawar.

¶6

Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Behind Lodha School, Vitthal Basti, Outside Nehru Gate, Beawar.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Parasmal S/o Late Shri Sualal Gothi, Resident Of Plot No. 2, Band Upasara Gali, Naya Bas, Beawar.

¶10

Smt. Manju Kothari D/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, W/o Late Shri Premchand Kothari, Resident Of Kothari Niwas Sampati No. 49, Behind Akashvani, Near Guru Kirana, Vishnu Nagar, Aurangabad (Maharashtra)

¶11

Smt. Madhu Lodha D/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, W/o Late Shri Sureshchand Lodha, Resident Of Sampati No. 11, Gali No. 3, Moti Vihar, Pancholi Chauraha, Ramnagar, Ajmer. (Since Deceased)

¶12

3/1 Smt. Anshika Jain W/o Shri Sandeep Kothari D/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Lodha, Resident Of Leela Sadan, Kankaria Pole, Viram Chowk Ke Pass, Jalore.

¶13

3/2 Smt. Sejal W/o Shri Shubham Nahar D/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Lodha, Resident Of H.no. 40, Muni Pushkar Colony, Madanganj, Kishangarh.

¶14

3/3 Shri Vikas Lodha S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Lodha, Resident Of P.no. 11, Gali No. 3, Moti Vihar, Pancholi Chouraha, Ramnagar, Ajmer.

¶15

Smt. Sangeeta Lodha D/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, W/o Shri Shantilal Lodha, Resident Munim Colony, Vijaynagar, District Beawar.

¶16

Smt. Suman Ranka D/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, W/o Shri Jitendra Ranka, Resident Of Ganesh Talai, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh.

¶17

Smt. Chandu @ Chanda Mugdiya D/o Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal, W/o Shri Moolchand Mugdiya, Resident Bangla No. 7, Kandivali, Gokuldham Society, Saibaba Nagar, Borewali West, Mumbai - 400067

----Respondents

[2025:RJ-JP:16835]

[CW-16856/2024]

2025:RJ-JP:16835]	(2 of 5) [CW
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Ashok Kumar Pareek with Ms.Rani Bhandari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg

¶22

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶23

Order

¶24

22/04/2025

¶25

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in Rent Appeal No.12/2024 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay occupational charge of Rs.28,000/- per month to the respondents till disposal of the appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay occupational charge of Rs.28,000/- per month is exorbitant. Counsel submits that the occupational charge for the premises in question has been determined on the basis of rent agreement of a shop dated 10.02.2020, executed by one tenant-Ghanshyam in favour of the landlord-Manohar Singh. Counsel submits that size of the aforesaid shop is bigger in comparison to the premises in question. Counsel submits that the said shop is closed and is not under the tenant’s occupation. Counsel submits that considering the difference in size of the premises in question that it is lesser than the said shop, the direction of payment of occupational charges of Rs.28,000/- is liable to be reduced and appropriate orders be passed accordingly.

[2025:RJ-JP:16835]

[CW-16856/2024]

(3 of 5)

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are version and cross-versions with regard to actual size of the shop of the said person-Ghanshyam. Counsel submits that as per the affidavit submitted by the respondents, the size of the said shop is 8.6 x 36.6 feet while the size of the premises in question is 8.2 x 27 feet. Counsel submits that the rent of Rs.28,000/- was agreed between the landlord and tenant of the said premises in the year 2020 and the rent might have increased during the intervening period, till the order has been passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the year 2024, hence, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court.

¶31

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the same has been passed on the basis of rent agreement of the shop situated in the same vicinity wherein the rent agreement was executed in favour of the tenant-Ghanshyam in the year 2020. So far as the size of the said premises is concerned, the Commissioner was appointed to inspect and submit a report on the same, but he could not submit his report on account of closure of the said premises, thus the exact size of the said shop is not available on the record. The size of the said shop is disputed by both the sides. Looking to the affidavit submitted by the landlord, the size of the said premises is 8.6 x 36.6 feet and the rent of the said shop is Rs.28,000/- per month while the size of the premises in question,

[2025:RJ-JP:16835]

[CW-16856/2024]

(4 of 5)

as per the landlord herself is 8.2 x 27 feet, i.e., lesser in size in comparison to the aforesaid shop.

¶36

Now, the question remains for consideration before this Court is that as to whether the rent fixed for the aforesaid shop as Rs.28,000/-, in the year 2020 can serve as a basis for granting occupational charges of Rs.28,000/- in the instant case to the landlord/petitioners.

¶37

Without going into the controversy involved in the matter, but taking into account the affidavit submitted by the landlord herself, wherein she acknowledges that the size of the premises is slightly smaller and that the Appellate Tribunal has assessed the compensation somewhat on the higher side and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the landlord is entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

¶38

It has been informed by the counsel for the parties that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal has been complied with and the arrears of the said amount has been deposited, thus the excess payment made by the petitioner to the respondent may be adjusted in the future rent.

¶39

Looking to the fact that the appeal is pending for adjudication before the Appellate Court since last more than one year, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order with the expectation from the Rent Appellate Tribunal to take all possible endavours to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, as early as possible, preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

[2025:RJ-JP:16835]

[CW-16856/2024]

(5 of 5)

The record summoned from the Appellate Court be sent back forthwith.

¶44

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶46

Aayush Sharma/1

Smt. Shanta Devi @ Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal v. Shri Parasmal S/O Late Shri Sualal Gothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Shanta Devi @ Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Nemichand Shrishreemal v. Shri Parasmal S/O Late Shri Sualal Gothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Jyoti Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Satyanarayan Jangir S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Jangir Vs State of Rajasthan

Lbs Convent School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Bapusingh Son of Karansingh Vs Gankanwar Bai Daughter of Ratansingh Wife of Umraosingh Son of Harisingh Rajput

Smt. Ramvilas W/O Mohan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vinod Mittal S/O Sh. Om Prakash Jain Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks