Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 996 (RAJ)

Paras Mal Patodi v. Kanta Devi

2011-05-11

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief : "(i) to quash and set aside the order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure-19) passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bijaynagar, Beawar; (ii) to allow the application filed by he petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 dated 4.9.2009 impleading him as a party defendant in the suit. (iii) Any other appropriate order, direction or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Smt. Kanta Devi filed one suit for eviction and arrears of rent against defendant-respondent No.2 Kailash Chand. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC imploring the Court to implead him as a party-defendant in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2009. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the suit premises were initially let out to one Nemi Chand Parasmal Patodi. He further canvassed that about 10-12 years back, the petitioner and the defendant-respondent No.2 occupied these two shops and became the tenant. The petitioner has been regularly depositing the rent with the respondent No.1-landlord and the respondent No.1-landlord has been issuing the receipts. These rent receipts tangibly suggest that the petitioner was the tenant in the suit premises and there was a relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 to that of tenant and landlord. 4. E Converso, learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was not at all the tenant nor suit premises were ever let out to him. So far as the receipts are concerned, the receipts were issued in favour of Satish Cycle Store. Learned counsel took me through para No.1 of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and canvassed that shops No.2 and 3 were let out to Nemi Chand Paras Mal Patodi about 52-53 years back and Nemi Chand Paras Mal Patodi was allegedly running his business in the name of style of Satish Cycle Store. Learned counsel took me through para No.1 of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and canvassed that shops No.2 and 3 were let out to Nemi Chand Paras Mal Patodi about 52-53 years back and Nemi Chand Paras Mal Patodi was allegedly running his business in the name of style of Satish Cycle Store. The shop was never let out to the petitioner, who has been running his business in the name of Satish Cycle Company as this Company has come into existence for the first time in the year 2002. The mere fact that this Company came into existence in the year 2002 candidly suggests that the shop was never let out to the petitioner tenant. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the petitioner must have come in possession with the connivance of the original tenant, but that does not give him the status of tenant within the definition of "tenant" as laid down in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his arguments placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of L.R. of Mishrimal vs. L.Rs. of Sukh Lal and Others reported in 2006(4) RLW page 2890, wherein this Court observed in para No. 68 thus : "Thus, considering the case from all aspects as noticed above, in my view a legatee i.e. the person claiming under a Will of statutory tenant cannot claim protection of the Act, unless he is otherwise an "heir" within the meaning of Section 3(vii) of the Act read with Section 3(f) of the Succession Act and also unless he could satisfy the other requisite conditions of Section 3(vii) of the Act." 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the suit premises are said to have been let out 52-53 years back to Nemi Chand Paras Mal Patodi and Satish Cycle Store is said to have come into existence in the year 2002. Thus, at the time when the suit premises were let out, Satish cycle Store was not in existence. Further, the defendant-respondent No.2 is the son of Nemi Chand Patodi and as such being the "heir" of deceased Nemi Chand Patodi, he became the tenant. Thus, at the time when the suit premises were let out, Satish cycle Store was not in existence. Further, the defendant-respondent No.2 is the son of Nemi Chand Patodi and as such being the "heir" of deceased Nemi Chand Patodi, he became the tenant. It seems that with a view to defeat the right of the plaintiff-respondent No.1-landlord, the petitioner filed the application in collusion with tenant-defendant. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that these powers should not be usually exercised to interfere with the pure findings of fact of the courts below. 8. The impugned order rendered by the court below is found to be just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. The impugned order is neither found to be perverse nor contrary to the material on record, hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merits stands dismissed in limine.