Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2015 (RAJ)

Rajeev Parashar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-05

J.K.RANKA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. We have learned learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. By this Special Appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge, by which he has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the dispute involved in the case is between the petitioner-tenant and the Bar Association, Ajmer landlord, which had let out the shop. The petitioner had based his claim on an agreement, and thus the remedy of the writ petition is not available to the petitioner. He may approach the Civil Court by way of filing a civil suit to resolve the dispute, or avail any other remedy available in law. 3. The shop is not situated in the premises of the District Court, Ajmer. It is situated at a distance in the premises of Family Court, in which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is also situated. It is alleged that the premises were allotted by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer to the Bar Association, Ajmer on 19.04.2003 along with a generator cum switch room, to provide services of photostat and fax. The Divisional Commissioner had directed the Bar Association to contact the Collector, Ajmer and 2 obtain his permission, to occupy the shop, and/or to let it out on rent. 4. Prima facie, the Bar Association, Ajmer did not have any right to let out the premises, as the Bar Association is not the owner, nor was it permitted, or could be allowed to give it on rent. The petitioner-tenant and the Bar Association, Ajmer appears to have entered into an illegal and unauthorised agreement on 01.08.2003, in which there is an arbitration clause. 5. Without going into the merits of the matter, as to whether the Bar Association is the owner and landlord, or that it could have let out the premises, with or without permission of the Collector, Ajmer, we do not find that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the agreement of rent of a property, which belongs to the State Government. Even if the Bar Association was allowed the occupation, which at best can be a license, for providing facility of photostat and fax to its members and litigants, it did not have, nor it could be given a right to sub-let the shop on rent, to be received by it. Even if the Bar Association was allowed the occupation, which at best can be a license, for providing facility of photostat and fax to its members and litigants, it did not have, nor it could be given a right to sub-let the shop on rent, to be received by it. There are no pleading to the effect that the Commissioner or Collector had allowed the Bar Association to let out the shop.We are informed that the Bar Association has notified the auction, which is going to fetch Rs. 24,000/- per month for the same shop. 6. The Special Appeal is dismissed, with observations that the Collector, Ajmer will look into the matter, and will pass necessary orders with regard to letting out to the Government property by the Bar Association, which is a society. A copy of this order will 3 be sent to the District Judge, Ajmer and the Collector, Ajmer for necessary compliance.Appeal dismissed . *******