Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1526 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar Tank v. Rent Tribunal

2011-07-28

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the orders dated 23rd February, 2005, 30th July, 2005 and 27th September, 2005 rendered by the Rent Tribunal as also the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that the respondent no.3-plaintiff filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for the revision of the rent of the suit premises. After completion of trial, the learned Rent Tribunal revised the rent from Rs. 450/- per month being paid w.e.f. 20th March, 1991 to Rs. 906/- to be paid from 1st April, 2003. Learned Rent Tribunal also observed that after 1st April, 2003, the rent shall be subject to revision after the completion of each year at the rate of 5%. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 23rd February, 2005, the petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, albeit, the same is found to have been decided on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant filed a review application under Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC imploring that the appeal may be decided on merits, but the review application also stood dismissed for the reason that whatever the grounds were taken in the appeal as also in the review application have already been dealt with by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and there was no need to re-hear the case. 4. From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005, it is revealed that albeit, the name of Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal Advocate has been shown for the appellant, but in the last line of Para 1 of the judgment, it is tangibly recorded that none was present for the appellant to argue the appeal and the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal cursorily dismissed the appeal on merits. Similarly, in review application also, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not think it proper to consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and dismissed the same. 5. Undeniably and un-disputably, it is an admitted fact that the appeal was decided by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner. Similarly, in review application also, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not think it proper to consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and dismissed the same. 5. Undeniably and un-disputably, it is an admitted fact that the appeal was decided by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner. It is the right of the appellant to defend his case under the provisions of law but this right is not found to have been availed by the petitioner-appellant. Hence, while setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 2005 and 27th September, 2005, I deem it just and proper to remit the case to the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal for its fresh decision. 6. In view of above, the writ petition stands partially allowed. The judgment dated 30th July, 2005 and 27th September, 2005 rendered by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with the provisions of law after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 7. So far as the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2005 rendered by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur is concerned, it stands as it is and it shall be subject to the decision of the appeal, to be decided now by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 10th August, 2011. 8. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of, accordingly.Petition partly allowed. *******