Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1993 (RAJ)

Jagdish Chandra v. Govind Vallabh

2008-08-22

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Suresh Shrimali appears for the respondent No.1 landlord. Service on respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 2. By the instant writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal (for short 'the appellate Tribunal' hereinafter) has been challenged by the petitioner tenant. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. On a petition under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001' hereinafter) filed by respondent No.1 landlord against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short 'the rent tribunal' hereinafter), the respondent rent Tribunal passed the order of eviction of the shop in question by order dated 08.10.2004, against which the petitioner tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. By order impugned, the appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Thus, there is concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 5. On close scrutiny of the order passed by the rent Tribunal as well as the appellate Tribunal, in my view, the finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below is based on sound and proper appreciation of evidence and warrants no interference in invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India keeping in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 1561 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The Supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art.227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution to review or re-weight the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 6. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution to review or re-weight the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question is commercial premises and therefore, a reasonable period of two years to vacate the premises may be granted to the petitioner and the petitioner will handover the vacant possession of the shop in question on completion of two years and would continue to pay the mesne profit month by month by 15th of each month to the respondent No.1 landlord and would also furnish undertaking to abide by the order passed by this Court in this petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 landlord has no objection in granting time but not for two years, however, agreed in grating time until 31.12.2009. 8. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, 1 think it appropriate that the petitioner may be allowed to vacate the premises latest by 31.12.2009 and pay mesne profit as determined by the orders impugned. 9. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs; however, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises in question by 31.12.2009 on the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner shall personally submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the respondent Rent Tribunal within three weeks from today to the effect that on or before 31.12.2009, he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent No.1 landlord. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the premises in question; not to make any alteration; not to assign, sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person; not to put the premises to any use other than the present use; and not to cause any nuisance. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the premises in question; not to make any alteration; not to assign, sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person; not to put the premises to any use other than the present use; and not to cause any nuisance. (2) The petitioner shall deposit within three weeks the arrears, if any, of the rent/mesne profits or the amount determined or allowed by the respondent Rent Tribunal and shall further pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the premises in question at the rate determined by the order impugned Annex.12 per month w.e.f. 01.08.2008 or deposit this amount in the bank account of the landlord (particulars whereof may be furnished to the petitioner within two weeks from today by the respondent landlord) month by month on or before 15th day of the next month. 10. It is made clear that upon the petitioner's failure to comply with any of the conditions aforesaid or violating any term of the undertaking, the respondent landlord shall be entitled to execute the order and the certificate forthwith in accordance with law.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******