Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1520 (RAJ)

Jamna Lal Gautam v. Rajendra Kumar Mehta

2011-07-28

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.05.2011 (Annex. 11) whereby the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner with reference to the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC'). 2. It is contended that in fact the tenancy had been in relation to Plots Nos. 9 and 10 together and the petition for eviction remains incompetent for having been filed only in relation to Plot No. 10. It is also contended that there had been other heirs of the original owner Bhagwati Lal and, therefore, the petition filed only by the one of the heirs of the original owner is not maintainable as the plaintiff cannot be said to having a right to sue with him. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. : AIR 1977 SC 2421 , State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. M/s Swaika Properties & Anr. : AIR 1985 SC 1289 , and Bhagwan Das v. Goswami Brijesh Kumariji & Ors. : AIR 1983 Rajasthan 3 . 3. The submissions by the learned counsel remain totally bereft of substance and do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 4. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are essentially in the nature of defence plea wherein the petitioner seeks to assert existence of a joint tenancy regarding Plots Nos. 9 and 10; and seeks to submit that the eviction petition only in relation to Plot No. 10 is not maintainable by only one of the heirs of the original owner. 5. The learned Tribunal has very rightly observed that submissions as sought to be made by the defendant-petitioner are that in the nature of the defence plea that could only be considered at the relevant stage and the petition cannot be rejected on such a plea. 6. The decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference in this matter. 6. The decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference in this matter. In T. Arivandandam's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC should be exercised if the plaint is found manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue. In the present case, the petition on its plain reading cannot be said to be vexatious or frivolous. It gets per force reiterated that what is suggested by the petitioner for rejection of the petition is his plea in opposition. Such a plea might be considered at the relevant stage but the petition cannot be rejected thereupon. In the case of Swaika Properties (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court essentially considered the question of territorial jurisdiction and for the purpose, the Hon'ble Court explained the connotation of the expression 'cause of action'. The observations in Swaika Properties have no adverse bearing on the petition for eviction as filed in this case because the plaintiff has stated the cause of action in no uncertain terms; and it cannot be said that the petition does not disclose a cause of action at all. So far the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Das (supra) is concerned, even though the Court observed that for examining the aspect of cause of action, the plaint and the documents on which the plaint was based could be looked on their face value but it has not been laid down that the documents sought to be referred by the defendant in support of his stand are also to be analysed and evaluated for the purpose of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 7. This Court is not commenting on the merits of the case but so far the application moved by the petitioner with reference to the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the same being entirely misconceived, has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal. 8. No case for exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be also placed on the record of cognate matter, CWP No.6440/2011.Petition dismissed. *******