Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 914 (RAJ)

Shyam Lal v. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara

2013-05-07

P.K.LOHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Imploring quashment of impugned judgment dated 22nd of February 2012 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, `the learned Appellate Tribunal'), the petitioner (tenant) has laid the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment has upheld the judgment dated 7th of January 2010 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, `learned Tribunal'), on a petition under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (for short, `the Act of 2001') filed by the third respondent landlord. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the third respondent landlord preferred a petition under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 before the learned Tribunal for redetermination of rent of the premises in question situated at Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara. In the petition, it was inter-alia alleged by the respondent landlord that at the threshold Smt. Rampyari Bai purchased the plot from Prahlat Rai, Jagdish Chandra and Shantilal on 17.11.1979 by way of registered sale deed and received possession of the premises. Claiming herself to be daughter-in-law of Smt. Rampyari, third respondent has stated in the petition that Smt. Rampyari Bai has passed away on 7th July 2003 and before her death she has executed a testamentary instrument in her favour and gave the premises in question to the third respondent. Thus, by virtue of Will, the third respondent is in possession over the property in question as its owner. In the petition, it was pleaded that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises in question during the lifetime of Smt. Rampyari Bai. The parties had mutually agreed on monthly rent of Rs. 200 per month for the said premises by way of oral tenancy. In her petition, the third respondent has also stated that after the death of Rampyari Bai, her husband Anil Kumar recovered the rent on her behalf for the disputed premises from the petitioner and this practice continued upto 31st of March 2004. The petitioner's precise assertion in the petition for revision of rent was that since inception of the tenancy almost a decade has elapsed but the petitioner tenant has not revised the rent and as such she is entitled to receive rent at the revised rate of Rs. 350 per month. 3. The petitioner's precise assertion in the petition for revision of rent was that since inception of the tenancy almost a decade has elapsed but the petitioner tenant has not revised the rent and as such she is entitled to receive rent at the revised rate of Rs. 350 per month. 3. The petition for revision of rent preferred at the behest of third respondent was contested by the petitioner-tenant and the petitioner has submitted reply to the said petition. In the return, the petitioner has averred that the premises in question is used by him as tenant for manufacturing of steel furniture. While responding to the averments contained in the petition for revision of rent that the disputed premises was given to the third respondent by way of Will allegedly executed by Rampyari Bai, the petitioner has pleaded ignorance about so called Will. The petitioner has also made endeavor in the reply to deny the allegation of the third respondent that she has received rent from him as his landlady. Joining the issue with the third respondent on execution of Will, the petitioner has raised a specific plea that in want of any specific order of the Court proof of Will is under serious cloud and that being so, the assertion of the third respondent as owner of the disputed property cannot be accepted. With all these facts, the petitioner has prayed for rejection of the petition for revision of rent. 4. In response to the reply of the petitioner, the third respondent submitted rejoinder and reiterated the averments contained in the original petition. 5. After completion of the pleadings of the rival parties, the respective parties tendered their documentary and oral evidence and thereafter the learned Tribunal finally adjudicated the petition for revision of rent and vide its judgment dated 7th January 2010 revised the rent of the premises to Rs. 250 per month from the date of application i.e. 12th of February 2009 with a further direction for escalation in the rent at the rate of 5% per year. The petitioner, being disgruntled with the judgment of the learned Tribunal, challenged the said judgment before the learned Appellate Tribunal and the learned Appellate Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 22nd February 2012 (Annex.5) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner, being disgruntled with the judgment of the learned Tribunal, challenged the said judgment before the learned Appellate Tribunal and the learned Appellate Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 22nd February 2012 (Annex.5) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of impugned verdict, the petitioner (tenant) is in dilemma as to whom he should pay the rent/revised rent. The contention of Mr. Mukesh Maheshwari is that the respondent while serving a notice on petitioner for attornment of tenancy and revision of rent has not furnished the copy of the testamentary instrument allegedly executed by the original landlady in her favour and as such it is difficult for the petitioner to acknowledge her as landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Maheshwari has urged that payment of enhanced rent to the respondent may not be a valid tender of rent exposing the petitioner tenant for eviction from the rented premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 9. At the outset, the contention of the petitioner-tenant appears to be quite attractive but in the background of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the argument is wholly misplaced and not at all tenable. There is no quarrel in the factual position that original landlady is survived by her only son as her legal heir, and therefore, payment of rent to his wife in whose favour Will is allegedly executed by the landlady, cannot expose the petitionertenant for any action on the anvil of default. It is an admitted position that notice for attornment of tenancy and revision of rent was served by the third respondent on the petitioner, wherein she has conveyed to the petitioner-tenant that she has become owner of the disputed premises on the strength of testamentary document executed in her favour by Smt. Rampyari Bai. That apart, the copy of Will was also annexed with the petition for enhancement of rent before the learned Tribunal. That apart, the copy of Will was also annexed with the petition for enhancement of rent before the learned Tribunal. For substantiating her claim for revision of rent, the respondent landlord has also tendered documentary and oral evidence before the learned Tribunal which was duly considered by the learned Tribunal and thereafter the judgment was rendered for revision of rent. This sort of situation, in my considered opinion, automatically vanishes the so called apprehension of the petitioner for all practical purposes. Moreover, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been aptly dealt with by both the courts below by recording concurrent finding against the petitioner. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded by both the courts cannot be faulted in any manner whatsoever. 10. On a close scrutiny of the impugned judgments, this Court is convinced that a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Tribunals below is neither perverse nor it is based on complete misreading of documentary and oral evidence on record. There is no error, much less an error apparent on the face of record in the said finding of fact and furthermore this finding of fact has also not occasioned failure of justice. This Court, while exercising its certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or to correct error in drawing inferences or for correcting errors of mere formal or technical character. It is a trite law that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly with great care and circumspection. The Apex Court in case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 has summed up the parameters in Para 38 (4) to (8) in nutshell, which are as under: (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 11. No other argument is advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 12. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition. 11. No other argument is advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 12. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed summarily. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******