Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 404 (RAJ)

Sajid Khan v. Subodh Nagauri

2015-02-12

ALOK SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.11.2014 whereby the Additional Sr. Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, acting as the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter "the Rent Tribunal") has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-applicant-objector (hereinafter "the objector") in the course of execution proceedings pursuant to the judgment of eviction dated 04.03.2009 at the instance of the landlord Subodh Nagori against the tenant Abdul Sattar. 2. The facts of the case are that a judgment of eviction against the tenant and certificate of possession in favour of the landlord having been passed on 04.03.2009 by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in proceedings under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act of 2001") and possession of the tenanted premises not having been handed over to the landlord within the time period set, execution proceedings were taken by the landlord before the Rent Tribunal. In the course of execution proceedings, an objection appears to have filed by Sajid Khan, now petitioner before this Court. Sajid Khan's case was that he had entered into an "agreement to sale" of the property in issue with one Suresh Nagori, brother of the landlord Subodh Nagori and had allegedly been put in possession thereof. It was stated that the objector not being a party in the eviction petition laid by Subodh Nagori, it could not be executed against him as he was in possession of the property in issue in his own right and not through the purported tenant Abdul Sattar who in any event had remained ex-parte and rendering it plainly evident that the proceedings for eviction laid by Subodh Nagori against him were collusive in nature and not binding on nor executable against the objector. 3. In the course of the aforesaid objections to the execution proceedings, the matter appears to have been adjourned on 18.01.2014 for the cross-examination of the objector Sajid Khan on the issue of marking of exhibit of a document before the Executing Court. 3. In the course of the aforesaid objections to the execution proceedings, the matter appears to have been adjourned on 18.01.2014 for the cross-examination of the objector Sajid Khan on the issue of marking of exhibit of a document before the Executing Court. At this stage, the objector appears to have moved an application before the Rent Tribunal requiring it to take on record the voter list indicating that the premises in issue in respect of which execution of the judgment of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal on 04.03.2009 was sought, belonged to the son of late Suganmal Nagori one Sunil Kumar. It was stated that the voter list is a public document and it ought to be taken on record for a fair and just adjudication of the execution application as the said document laid lie to the assertion in the eviction petition leading to the judgment dated 04.03.2009 that Suganmal Nagori, the erstwhile owner of the tenanted property had died without a natural heir, consequent to which the purported landlord was the successor entitled to rent and eviction on grounds therefore being made out. That application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.11.2014. 4. Mr. Abhinav Bhandari, appearing for the objector, submits that the Rent Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly in refusing to take on record the voter list evidencing that Suganmal Nagori, the erstwhile owner of the property in issue had a living son by the name of Sunil Kumar and this fact was relevant for the adjudication of the execution application. It has been submitted that the very foundation of the judgment dated 04.03.2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal is fraudulent for the reason that the purported landlord Subodh Nagori had set up a case before the Rent Tribunal that late Suganmal Nagori his "Taau" had left behind no living successor entitling him to the ownership of the property. 5. Heard the counsel for the objector and perused the order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the Rent Tribunal. 6. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in the case of the petitioner - objector. The issue before the Rent Tribunal was not with regard to the ownership of the property in issue, but with regard to the renting out of the property and the applicant Subodh Natori was found to be its landlord. 6. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in the case of the petitioner - objector. The issue before the Rent Tribunal was not with regard to the ownership of the property in issue, but with regard to the renting out of the property and the applicant Subodh Natori was found to be its landlord. Whether the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that Subodh Nagori was the landlord of Abdul Sattar or not, is another aspect of the matter which could have been addressed in a challenge in an appropriate appeal. And cannot be an issue in the execution proceedings. Aside of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner - objector has all manner of objections to agitate before the Execution Court and the factum of late Suganmal Nagori having or not having a living son is absolutely besides the point - if at all that fact could be proved on the basis of a voter list. The Rent Tribunal has therefore rightly held that the application at the instance of the objector to take on record the voter list showing that one Sunil Kumar was a living son of late Suganmal Nagori, the erstwhile owner of the property in issue, was wholly irrelevant to the proceedings before it. 7. There is no perversity or misdirection in law in the impugned order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the Rent Tribunal. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is without force. 9. Dismissed. 10. Stay application needs no address in view of the petition itself having been dismissed. Petition dismissed.