Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1693 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad v. Shanti Devi Panwar

2014-10-16

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.1.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Nagaur, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners herein, seeking rejection of the petition for eviction preferred by the respondent, stands rejected. 2. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners under Section 9 and 18 of Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"). The premises in question, a shop, was let out by Shri Kamalchand Baid to the petitioners' father Shivprasad. The respondent has purchased the shop from Shri Kamalchand Baid by way of registered sale deed dated 2.11.12. The respondent claims that since the petitioners herein were not engaged in business with their father during his lifetime, they do not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as set out in Section 2(i) of the Act and therefore, they are liable to be evicted from the premises in question. That apart, the eviction is sought on the ground that the tenants have already acquired vacant possession of premises adequate for their requirement. 3. The petition is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the petitioners have never paid rent either to Shri Kamalchand or Smt. Shanti Devi and therefore, there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It was further averred that Smt. Shanti Devi, the respondent herein, has admitted in the petition that no landlord and tenant relationship exists between her and the petitioners and therefore, the petition filed under the provisions of the Act, is not maintainable before the Rent Tribunal. 4. The application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto taking the stand that the premises was occupied by late Shri Shivprasad as tenant and since the petitioners herein were not engaged in business with their father, they do not continue as tenant and are liable to be evicted. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that as per provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the petition relating to the dispute between landlord and tenant and matter connected therewith can only be heard and decided by the Rent Tribunal and the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter. 5. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that as per provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the petition relating to the dispute between landlord and tenant and matter connected therewith can only be heard and decided by the Rent Tribunal and the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter. 5. After due consideration, the application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the petition filed before the Tribunal, the respondent has averred in unequivocal terms that the petitioners are not occupying the premises as tenant and therefore, in absence of landlord and tenant relationship, the petition for eviction preferred by the respondent, is not maintainable. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, relying upon the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, submitted that the dispute raised in the petition can be adjudicated upon only by the Rent Tribunal and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the premises in question was let out by the respondent's predecessor in title to the petitioners' father Shri Shivprasad. Precisely, the case of the respondent is that since the petitioners herein, the sons and daughters of late Shri Shivprasad were not ordinarily carrying on business with him in the premises in question as members of his family upto his death, they do not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as set out in Section 2(i) of the Act and therefore, they are liable to be evicted. Suffice it to say that whether the petitioners are tenant in the premises or not is a contentious issue between the parties, which needs to be determined by the Rent Tribunal on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. It is pertinent to note that as per provisions of Section 18, the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition relating to the dispute between the landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in this regard. It is pertinent to note that as per provisions of Section 18, the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition relating to the dispute between the landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in this regard. In this view of the matter, the dispute as raised in the petition exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal. 10. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******