Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 623 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. Mahavir Prasad

2014-03-04

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, these two intra-court appeals against the same interim order dated 16.12.2013, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.2997/2013, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal at this stage itself by this common judgment. 2. The short point involved in these appeals arises out of the grievance of both the parties, who are respectively the tenant, Shri Ramesh Kumar (Appellant of SAW No.81/2014); and the landlord, Shri Mahaveer Prasad (Appellant of SAW No.132/2014), against the interim directions given by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the impugned order dated 16.12.2013. 3. The aforesaid order dated 16.12.2013 has been passed in the writ petition filed by the tenant-Ramesh Kumar against the judgment dated 16.02.2013 as passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Srigaganagar in Rent Appeal No.6/2011 whereby, the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirmed the judgment and certificate for recovery of possession dated 28.05.2011, as issued by the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar in Rent Case No.98/2005 whereby, the petitioner-tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, said to be the shop situated at Railway Station Road, Gol Bazar, Srigaganagar, essentially on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff-landlord. 4. It appears that there had been the issues involved in the matter as regards the status of the demised premises as also the status of the parties qua the same inasmuch as it had been the case before the Court that the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad was having title over one-half portion of the shop in question, to the extent of 8x11; and Ashok Kumar, cousin of Mahaveer Prasad, was having ownership over the other 8x11 portion. The said Ashok Kumar is said to have executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad. The questions have been posed in the writ petition as regards the right and entitlement of the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad to seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement, particularly with reference to the fact that he was not having direct ownership over 8x11 portion of the shop, which he allegedly acquired through a gift deed during the pendency of the petition for eviction. 5. 5. The learned Single has found that the matter involves debatable issue and has admitted the writ petition while formulating the following question for consideration: "Whether the person who is receiving rent having power of attorney in his favour for part of the premises and defined as landlord under section 2(c) of the Act of 2001 can file petition for eviction on the ground of his own personal necessity? Admit." 6. Thereafter, in relation to the matter of grant of interim relief, the learned Single Judge has ordered as under:- "In the meantime, effect and operation of the judgments rendered by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal, to the extent of second shop belonging to Ashok Kumar shall remain stayed." 7. Both, the tenant as also the landlord are in appeal, for being aggrieved of the effect of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief that the execution of the certificate for recovery of possession would remain stayed only in relation to one part of the shop in question. Additionally, the landlord is also aggrieved of the admission of writ petition and seeks to submit that no debatable issue is involved in the writ petition. 8. So far admission of the writ petition is concerned, the matter had been directly within the domain and jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to examine if any arguable/debatable issue was involved; and once it was so found, the admission of writ petition remains unexceptionable and the respondent of the writ petition could least be permitted to agitate against such admission by way of intra-court appeal. This ground sought to be urged on behalf of the landlord deserves to be, and is, hereby rejected. 9. So far the matter for grant of interim relief is concerned, ordinarily, this Court is not inclined to interfere because granting or refusing the interim relief in one form or another remains essentially within the discretion of the learned Single Judge dealing with the writ petition; and such an order does not call for interference unless a definite case of gross failure of justice or prejudice is made out. However, in the present case, we find that the order as passed by the learned Single Judge is likely to prejudice either of the parties. 10. However, in the present case, we find that the order as passed by the learned Single Judge is likely to prejudice either of the parties. 10. In our view, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the interim order as passed by the learned Single Judge is likely to create more of imbalance of equities rather than balancing the same; and the execution of the certificate over a part of the premises in question is likely to lead to several complications. In this regard, we cannot loose sight of the fact that a single petition in relation to the shop in question was filed; and the certificate for recovery of possession was issued by the Rent Tribunal, and was affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, in relation to the single shop, said to be admeasuring 16x11. We would hasten to observe that we are not making any comments on the merits of the issues sought to be raised by the parties in this regard but, in the given status of record, any proposition of bifurcating the shop in question during the pendency of writ petition is likely to result more in complications and inconvenience rather than securing the ends of justice. 11. During the course of submissions, in response to the queries, it has been pointed out that the stay application as moved in the writ petition otherwise remains pending for final orders before the learned Single Judge; and a prayer by the landlord for early hearing of the writ petition is also proposed to be made before the learned Single Judge. It is also pointed out that the matter is posted for further consideration before the learned Single Judge on 20th instant. 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if, without any comments on the merits of the case either way, the order impugned is modified; and operation, effect and execution of the certificate for recovery of possession is ordered to remain stayed until further orders by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition and stay application. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. Needless to observe that this order staying execution of the certificate for recovery and possession shall otherwise not be treated as the final order on the stay application pending in the writ petition; and, irrespective of this order, it shall always be open for the learned Single Judge to pass any appropriate order, as deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.Appeal Disposed of. *******