Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2468 (RAJ)

Leela Devi v. Kamla

2019-09-13

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 5.8.19 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19.9.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, allowing the petition preferred on behalf of the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises, has been dismissed. 2. The disputed premises was let out by Smt. Fateh Kanwar to the petitioner herein. Later, the said property was purchased by the respondent from its owner Smt. Fateh Kanwar by way of registered sale deed executed pursuant to the compromise decree passed in a suit for specific performance. After purchasing the said property, the respondent also acquired adjoining strip land measuring 333.75 sq. ft. from Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide lease dated 23.2.10. On the strip land, the respondent constructed a room and also a shop by installing stone slabs and tin shed. The newly constructed accommodation as aforesaid was also let out by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner paid the rent to the respondent upto the month of June, 2010 and thereafter, the rent was not paid. The respondent served the petitioner with a notice demanding the arrears of rent and disclosing the bank account number. The notice was replied by the petitioner denying the landlord and tenant relationship. 3. The respondent preferred the petition seeking eviction before the Rent Tribunal on the grounds of default in payment of rent, nuisance and the tenant renouncing the character as such and denying the title of landlord, in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) , 9(d) and 9(f) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 (for short "the Act") respectively. 4. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and petitioner and also that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent for the period July, 2010 to July, 2011 for a period of 13 months. Accordingly, the petition was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 19.9.18, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of title of the landlord by the tenant. Accordingly, the petition was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 19.9.18, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of title of the landlord by the tenant. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the original sale deed whereby the disputed property was purchased by the respondent from Smt. Fateh Kanwar was not produced before the Rent Tribunal and thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in arriving at the conclusion that there exists a landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner. The petitioner also did not produce Smt. Fateh Kanwar, original owner of the property, for examination before the Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the rent agreement dated 14.1.07 was a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the order impugned, the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective, which has resulted in an erroneous findings being arrived at. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the factum of Fateh Kanwar being the original owner of the property, the premises being let out by Fateh Kanwar to the petitioner in the first instance and the property being purchased by the respondent for consideration from Fateh Kanwar was categorically admitted by the petitioner NAW 1-Smt. Kamla in her cross examination before the Rent Tribunal and thus, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal do not suffer from any jurisdictional error and thus, the petition filed being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal had taken the stand that she is occupying the premises in question as owner of the property and not as tenant. It was averred that the premises was gifted by Smt. Fateh Kanwar to the petitioner by way of oral gift. At the same time, it was averred by the petitioner that the respondent and her husband hatched a conspiracy and obtained a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- from the petitioner, however, got the sale deed registered in her favour. It was averred that the premises was gifted by Smt. Fateh Kanwar to the petitioner by way of oral gift. At the same time, it was averred by the petitioner that the respondent and her husband hatched a conspiracy and obtained a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- from the petitioner, however, got the sale deed registered in her favour. But the fact remains that no cogent evidence whatsoever in this regard was led by the petitioner. It is true that the respondent had not produced the original sale deed on record but a certified copy of the sale deed was produced, which was admitted in evidence and thus, the objection sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding non production of the original sale deed, is devoid of any merit. As a matter of fact, the factum of the premises in question being let out by Smt. Fateh Kanwar to the petitioner was admitted by the petitioner (NAW-1) in her deposition before the Rent Tribunal in unequivocal terms. The factum of the disputed premises being sold by Fateh Kanwar to the respondent and her sons by way of registered sale deed was also admitted by the petitioner. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, the respondent being the owner of the property and consequently the landlord and the petitioner occupying the premises as tenant, initially inducted by the original owner Fateh Kanwar, stands duly proved. The petitioner having denied the title of the respondent , the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in allowing the petition on the ground of denial of title in terms of provisions of Section 9(f) of the Act. The petitioner being in default in payment of rent inasmuch as, it is not even the case of the petitioner that the rent of the premises for the disputed period was paid by her to the respondent. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.