Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2794 (RAJ)

Madhavdas v. Rajkumar Vyas

2019-11-06

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 11.9.19 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, dismissing an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a rented premises on various grounds under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"). 3. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of the proceedings in the rent petition stating that the premises in question was let out by Shri Chandmal to petitioner's father Shri Mithulal in the year 1947-48 and after death of his father, he is carrying on business in the said premises. It was averred that Smt. Hari Devi widow of late Shri Chandmal and Taresh Kumar son of late Shri Chandmal executed an agreement to sell dated 12.1.76 for sale of certain portion of the building including the garage to the petitioner's father for consideration of Rs.13,500/- and received a sum of Rs.5,000/- in advance. Later, Smt. Hari Devi and Shri Taresh Kumar received a sum of Rs.1700/- from petitioner's father and executed agreement and receipt dated 4.11.77 that they will not claim the rent of the disputed premises. It was averred that a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.1.76 preferred by the petitioner's father (since deceased), now represented by inter alia the petitioner, against Smt. Hira Devi (since deceased) and Shri Taresh Kumar (since deceased), represented by their legal representatives, is pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur wherein the respondent has also been impleaded as party defendant and therefore, the proceedings in the petition filed by the respondent deserves to be stayed during the pendency of the earlier suit in respect of the property which includes the disputed premises. 4. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the property in dispute in suit and the petition filed by the respondent before the Rent Tribunal is almost same and thus, if both the proceedings are permitted to be proceeded simultaneously, there is possibility of Court/Tribunal passing conflicting/contrary judgments and the same is bound to create multiplicity of the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the property in dispute in suit and the petition filed by the respondent before the Rent Tribunal is almost same and thus, if both the proceedings are permitted to be proceeded simultaneously, there is possibility of Court/Tribunal passing conflicting/contrary judgments and the same is bound to create multiplicity of the proceedings. According to the learned counsel to avoid the situation of the Civil Court and the Tribunal passing conflicting/contradictory judgments, the proceeding in the petition subsequently filed by the respondent before the Rent Tribunal deserves to be stayed. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 10 in correct perspective. The issue involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract and the petition filed by the respondent seeking eviction from the disputed premises is substantially the same and therefore, the proceedings in the petition filed by the respondent deserves to be stayed. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Khandrika Jagadeshwara Sharma vs. Khandrika Chayanatha Sharma and Anr., (2012) 2 CivCC 169 (AP) , decision of Bombay High Court in Ravikumar Shrichandji Kalra and Ors. vs. Pradeepsingh Sunderlal Chouhan and Ors., (2012) 1 CivCC 505 (Bombay) and a decision of this court in the matter of Bhag Singh vs. Smt. Savitra Devi and Anr., (2011) 3 DNJ 1033 (Raj.) . 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent contended that admittedly, the petitioner has occupied the disputed premises as tenant and the respondent has acquired the title over the property on the strength of registered sale deed dated 15.3.13 executed by the owner of the property Smt. Usha Sharma by way of registered sale deed. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in terms of the agreement, the petitioner is not required to pay the rent of the premises, the petitioner who is occupying the premises as tenant does not acquire a right to make alteration in the premises. It is submitted that on account of such agreement, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not come to an end and therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the proceedings in the petition filed should be stayed on account of the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner as aforesaid. It is submitted that on account of such agreement, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not come to an end and therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the proceedings in the petition filed should be stayed on account of the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner as aforesaid. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.H.K.Sharma vs. Shri Ram Lal (Civil Appeal No.1237- 1238 of 2019), decided on 28.1.19 and a decision of this court in the matter of Smt. Ganga Devi vs. Nanalal, 2011 1 DNJ 237 . 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A bare perusal of the agreement dated 12.1.76 and the agreement dated 4.11.77 in no manner reflect that the owner of property had intention to surrender the tenancy agreement either expressly or impliedly. In this view of the matter, merely on account of pendency of the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner as aforesaid, the respondent who has purchased the entire property including the disputed premises from its owner Smt. Usha Sharma, the wife of Shri Taresh Kumar, shall not stand deprived of their right to seek eviction of the petitioner, who is occupying the premises as tenant, on the grounds specified under the Act of 2001. In any case, the issues involved in the suit previously filed by the petitioner's father for specific performance of the contract and the issues involved in the petition filed by the respondent seeking eviction on the grounds specified under the Act of 2001 cannot be considered to be substantially the same. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. H.K.Sharma's case (supra), the execution of agreement between the parties does not result in determination of tenancy. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.