Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1801 (RAJ)

Swami Gyanprakash v. Dr. Ravi Shankar

2014-11-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been allowed. 3. The application seeking eviction came to be filed by the respondent before the Tribunal indicating the same to be under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'). It was inter alia stated that the rent of the suit shop was Rs. 2,700/- per month. 4. In the application filed by the respondent, it was pointed out that as the rent of the premises was Rs. 2,700/-, Chapter-II & III of the Act are not applicable and therefore, the petition filed by the landlord be dismissed. 5. After filing of the application by the petitioner herein, the respondent filed application seeking amendment of the application to bring it in consonance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act of 1882'). The Rent Tribunal by its order dated 23.7.2014 allowed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment has been allowed so as to frustrate the application filed by the petitioner, which cannot be permitted and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the Rent Tribunal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. By grant of amendment, the nature of the proceedings and / or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not effect, inasmuch as, the petitioner before the Tribunal (landlord) has made averment regarding termination of tenancy by way of notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 and based on the averments made in the petition, such petition can be maintained. Even otherwise under Section 18 of the Act, the jurisdiction lies with the Rent Tribunal only and it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal permitting amendment of the petition has caused any prejudice of the petition.In view of the above, there is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******