Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 116 (RAJ)

Mohd. Frooq S/o Siraj Mohd. v. Rukmani Jain W/o Gopal Jain

2017-01-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Mohd. Farooq (tenant) has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 23.4.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Case No. 61/2007 whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act was rejected. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent Smt. Rukmani (landlord) filed an application for eviction against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was specifically pleaded by the landlord that the tenant had not paid rent for a period of 45 months. A notice of default was forwarded to the tenant on 29.12.2006 and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 90,000/- in the bank account of the landlord at the Bank of Rajasthan Branch Delwara, District Rajsamand. Details of the bank account were provided in the notice. However the tenant, despite receiving the notice did not deposit the due rent. The petitioner tenant, upon appearing before the Tribunal filed a reply to the eviction application and claimed that the property had been sold to him in the year 2004 and thus, the relationship of landlord tenant stood extinguished and there was no question of making payment of any rent to the plaintiff thereafter. However, the fact regarding receipt of notice for default was not disputed in the reply. Subsequently an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act was preferred by the petitioner tenant before the Tribunal stating therein that the bank account number which was provided in the notice was not of the same municipal area and thus, the mandatory requirement of Section 9A of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was not complied with and therefore, the rent eviction application was liable to be dismissed. 3. The said application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Tribunal by order dated 23.4.2015. Whereupon, he has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. 3. The said application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Tribunal by order dated 23.4.2015. Whereupon, he has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. It cannot be denied that with the dynamic change in the banking system, all the bank accounts have now become at par and have also gone online and it would be of no relevance even if the bank account which is mentioned in the notice of default of rent under Section 9A is of a different municipal area. The basic purpose behind the requirement under the Statute that the bank account should be of the same municipal area was in order to facilitate the tenant and to ensure that he/she would not be required to undergo the inconvenience of travelling for depositing the rent in case the bank account of the landlord was situated in another municipal area. However unquestionably, now the banking transactions have gone online and the accounts have become at par. A person intending to deposit money in any bank account existing anywhere in the country can very well do so from his own city and even from his own bank. Thus, the objection raised by the petitioner through his application under Section 21 of the Act was totally flimsy and far fetched and the Tribunal rightly rejected the same. The impugned order ex facie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or error apparent on the face of record so as to require interference in exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Petition dismissed.