Dismissed

Chandrasekhar Rathore Son of Lakshmi Narayan v. Smt. Kanta Bhardiya Wife of Roopnarayan Bhardiya

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2025CW/8860/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirming a previous eviction order. The court held the petitioner was estopped from challenging the findings as he failed to prefer a first appeal, rendering the lower order final.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Chandrasekhar Rathore Son of Lakshmi Narayan Vs Smt… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40347]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8860/2025

¶4

Chandrasekhar Rathore Son Of Lakshmi Narayan, Resident Of Dakshini Bada Lakshmi Chowk (Kadkaa Chowk) Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Kanta Bhardiya Wife Of Roopnarayan Bhardiya, Resident Of House No.7/72-40/75 Shriram Bhavan Kadkaa Chowk Ajmer Through Power Attorney Roopnarayan Bhardiya S/o Ramdan Bhardiya Resident Of House No. 7/72-40/75 Shriram Bhavan Kadkaa Chowk Ajmer.

¶8

Officer In Charge And Senior Superintendent Post Office, Ajmer Zone Ajmer For Government Of India Through Postmaster (General) Office, Opposite Savitri Girls School Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Raunak Singhvi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mandar Bhatodkar,
	Mr. ParagRastogi

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 06/10/2025

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in Rent Appeal No. 21/2018 (CIS No. 21/2018) titled "Officer In Charge and Senior Superintendent Post Office Vs. Smt. Kanta & Anr." as well as the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Original Application No. 332T/2012(5/2008) titled as "Smt. Kanta Vs. Chandershekhar & Ors.," whereby the application filed for eviction was allowed.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders suffer from perversity and are unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The petitioner is not liable to pay the rent as directed by the learned Rent Tribunal and upheld by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and set aside.

[2025:RJ-JP:40347]

[CW-8860/2025]

(2 of 3)

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that possession of the property was handed over to the respondent No.1, and the liability to pay the rent is specifically fastened upon the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in both the orders so as to warrant any interference by this Court, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record.

¶19

A bare perusal of the record indicates that the original eviction petition was filed in the year 2008, and after a detailed trial, the same was allowed vide order dated 20.01.2018. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:

¶20

"1– ቕኍ�गणकि�रायेशुदापरिरसर�ा�्ቈ ाछ: माहमेंअቌኍ�दारप्ቌ �ोसुपुद��रे, छ: माहमें�्ቈ ासुपुद�नहींकि�एቌኍानेपरअቌኍ�दारप्ቌ छ: माहप्ቐातकि�रायशुदापरिरसर �ा�्ቈ ा्ቚ ा्቎ �रने�ाअकि$�ारीहोगा। 2– छ: माहमें�्ቈ ासुपुद�कि�एቌኍाने�ीቝኌ'कितमेंअቌኍ�दारिरया्ቚ्ቓ ቕኍ�गणसेकि�रायशुदा परिरसर�ेउपयोगउपभोग�ेएवቌኍमें 45/– रु०्ቚ कितमाह�ीदरसेकि�राया्ቚ ा्቎ �र स�ेंगेतቕኍाछ: माहमें�्ቈ ासुपुद�नहींकि�एቌኍाने�ीቝኌ'कितमें�्ቈ ा्ቚ माणप्ቔ ቌኍारी कि�एቌኍाने�ीकितकिቕኍसेतीनगुनादरसेअंत�ालीनलाभ�ेरूपमें्ቚ्ቓ ቕኍ�गणसेकि�राया ा्቎ �रस�ेंगे। 3– अቌ�दारኍ ቕ�सኍ ा 1 से किदनां� 15.01.06 से 14.8.07 त��ाकि�राया 4500/– र. ु कितमाह�ीदरस 85500/– रपयू े व 15.8.07 से किदनां� 31.12.07 त�हቌाኍ �नाराकिश 4500/– रपयू कितमाह�ीदरस 20250/– रूपये �लु 1,05,750/– रपयू ा �रने �ीअकि$�ारिरणीह।ै 3– तदनुसार�्ቈ ाववसूली्ቚ माणप्ቔ ቌኍारीहो।

¶21

4– आदेश�ी्ቚ कित$ारा 17 राቌኍ०कि�रायाकिनयं्ቔणअकि$किनयम, 2001 �ेतहत ቕኍ�गण�ोदीቌኍावेवउसपरइसबात�ापृ्቗ां�नअंकि�तकि�याቌኍावेकि�यहउ्ሹ ाव$ान�ेतहतदीቌኍारहीहै।

¶22

5– प्ቌ�ारण�ोअपीलकि�रायाअकि$�रण, अቌኍमेर�ेसम्ቌ उपቝኌ'तहोनेहेतुकिदनां� 05.04.2018 हेतुपाबंदकि�याቌኍाताहै।"

[2025:RJ-JP:40347]

[CW-8860/2025]

(3 of 3)

It is an undisputed fact that the present petitioner has not assailed the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, and only respondent No. 2 - Post Office has preferred an appeal against said order. After a detailed consideration of the matter, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 19.10.2024, dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 and affirmed the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal.

¶27

From the above facts, it is evident that the petitioner herein has not challenged the original order dated 20.01.2018 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay rent and mesne profit from 15.01.2006 to 13.12.2007 @ Rs.4,500/- p.m. Thus, the said impugned order dated 20.01.2018 has attained finality qua the petitioner. Therefore, now the present petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the findings of the learned Rent Tribunal without preferring a first appeal by way of this writ petition; rather, petitioner is estopped from assailing the said orders due to his own conduct.

¶28

Further, it is also evident that the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶30

All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶32

Seema/16

Chandrasekhar Rathore Son of Lakshmi Narayan v. Smt. Kanta Bhardiya Wife of Roopnarayan Bhardiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekhar Rathore Son of Lakshmi Narayan v. Smt. Kanta Bhardiya Wife of Roopnarayan Bhardiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Butolia Son of Shri Shri Krishan Butoliya Vs State of Rajasthan

Khyali Ram S/O Mr. Deena Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Jha S/O Shri Prem Kumar Jha Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Suresh Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Tulsiram Son of Shri Gaddar Mal Ahir

Raju @ Rajuddeen S/O Shri Pappu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mandir Trust Shri Raghunath Mharaj Vs Rajesh Son of Shri Ramratan Nama