Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1780 (RAJ)

Anand Kumar v. Jamila Bano

2015-10-12

ALOK SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. A challenge has been made to the order dated 30.07.2015, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer dismissing an application filed by the petitioners-applicants (hereinafter “the applicants”) for impleadment as LRs of the deceased-tenant Madanlal Chauhan. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1- landlord, Smt. Jamila Bano (hereinafter “the landlord”) filed an eviction petition against the erstwhile tenant one Madanlal Chauhan inter alia on the ground of default covered under Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter “the Act of 2001”). The eviction petition was allowed, a certificate of possession issued in favour of the landlord and a direction was issued for the eviction of the tenant Madanlal Chouhan. Aggrieved Madanlal Chouhan filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, he expired. 3. At that stage, the applicants along with their mother Smt. Mohini Devi moved an application to be taken on record as LRs of deceased-tenant Madanlal Chouhan. Madanlal's wife Smt. Rekha and her minor children also moved a separate application for being taken on record as LRs of the deceased-tenant Madanlal Chauhan. The landlord on her part moved an application praying that the applicants' appeal against the judgment dated 06.10.2012, passed by the Rent Tribunal be dismissed as having abated as Madanlal Chauhan had died on 02.10.2013 and the application for taking on record the LRs of the Madanlal Chauhan was moved after a period of 90 days from his death. 4. As the three applications aforesaid had common aspects to be addressed, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has decided them all by the impugned order dated 30.07.2015. The landlord's application for abatement of appeal was dismissed. Smt. Mohini Devi, mother of Madanlal Chauhan, his wife Smt. Rekha and his minor children have been impleaded as LRs of the deceased-tenant in view of the ration card indicating that they were all residing in the tenanted premises. However, the appellate Tribunal has found that the brothers of the deceased-tenant, Anand Kumar and Om Prakash, the petitioners herein, did not fall within the definition of a tenant as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001 and dismissed their application for impleadment as LRs of deceased-Madanlal Chauhan. 5. However, the appellate Tribunal has found that the brothers of the deceased-tenant, Anand Kumar and Om Prakash, the petitioners herein, did not fall within the definition of a tenant as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001 and dismissed their application for impleadment as LRs of deceased-Madanlal Chauhan. 5. I have heard the counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order dated 30.07.2015, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer. 6. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the definition of tenant under Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001 which states that a “tenant” means the person by whom or on whose account rent has been paid for the tenanted premises to the landlord and includes the person who continues in possession of the tenanted premises after termination of the tenancy otherwise than by an order or decree for eviction passed under the provision of the Act of 2001. It has been further provided that in the event of death of the person referred to in Sub-close 2(i), in case of premises let out for residential purposes, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily residing with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death would be also fall within the meaning of “tenant:. 7. The applicants are brother of the deceased-tenant Madanlal Chauhan. They do not fall within the definition of tenant as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001 albeit they may have (assuming it to be so) resided with him as vociferously argued by the counsel for the applicants. It is not in dispute that the rent for the disputed premises was being paid by the deceased-tenant Madanlal Chauhan alone to the landlord. Aside of the aforesaid, during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal, the applicants had at no point of time made an application to be impleaded as co-tenants. 8. For the aforesaid reason, I find no force in the petition. 9. Dismissed.