Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2135 (RAJ)

Narayan Das v. Kumawat Samaj Rajsamand

2014-12-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the institution of India is directed against order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand, ('Appellate Tribunal') whereby, the Application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Commissioner has been subjected. 2. The respondent Kumawat Samaj Rajsamand ('Samaj') filed an application aider Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') before the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand ('Tribunal') against petitioner and Sagan Kshetra Vikas Samiti, Rajsamand ('Samiti'); the application was filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona-fide necessity and subletting. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondent Samiti denying the averments made in the application and prayed for dismissal of the same. 4. The petitioner Narayan Das filed his written statement and besides other aspects, questioned the title of the landlord in respect of the land which was in is possession. 5. After evidence was led by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no default in payment of rent, the requirement of the premises was reasonable and bona fide; the premises were sublet by the Samiti to petitioner narayan Das. While dealing with the issue of subletting, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disputed land was comprised in Araji No. 1670 belonging to fee applicant Samaj and not in Araji No. 1649 as claimed by the petitioner and, consequently, allowed the application and ordered issuance of recovery certificate. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner and Patwari for the purpose of making inspection of the dispute land and give report as to whether the disputed premises were part of the land comprised in Araji No. 1649 or 1670. The application was opposed by the respondent-landlord. 7. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the application had been filed only with a view of prolong the appeal and if obstruct the execution of judgment and decree of the Tribunal and, consequently dismissed the application. 8. The application was opposed by the respondent-landlord. 7. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the application had been filed only with a view of prolong the appeal and if obstruct the execution of judgment and decree of the Tribunal and, consequently dismissed the application. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, the location of land was the most crucial aspect in the matter and, once a report in this regard is submitted by the commissioners, the same would clarify the whole position. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission; made by learned Counsel for the petitioner; it was submitted that the application was filed only with a view to create evidence and to delay the disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; there is no substance in the application and the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. 11. It is apparent from the judgment of the Tribunal that the aspect as it whether the disputed premises were part of Araji No. 1649 or 1670 was well within the knowledge of the parties; both oral and documentary evidence was it by both the parties in support of their respective contentions. 12. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the disputed premises was part of Araji No. 1649 and not 1670 as claimed by the tenant; once a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal, before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitions has to show as to how the finding recorded by the Tribunal was contrary to tic oral and/or documentary evidence and the parties cannot be permitted gather/create further evidence by way of Commissioner's report as sought to h done by the petitioner. 13. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted. 14. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******