Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 701 (RAJ)

Gurdeep Singh v. Vijay Kumar

2019-03-01

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dt. 27.11.18 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Sri Ganganagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 22.9.17 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Case No. 24/13(2013/14), allowing the petition preferred by the respondents under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") and granting injunction as prayed for, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondents No. 1 & 2 preferred a petition under Sec. 18 of the Act alleging that a residential premises ad measuring 20 x 30 ft. consisting of 2 rooms, bathroom, toilet and kitchen was given on rent by them to the petitioner herein for rent Rs. 5,000/- on 1.11.90. However the petitioner herein attempted to occupy un-authorisedly the part of the premises owned and possessed by the respondents. Accordingly, the injunction was sought in terms that the petitioner herein may not interfere with the use and occupation of the premises by the respondents, by attempting to un-authorisedly occupy the part of the premises not let out. 3. The petition was contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. The specific stand of the petitioner in the reply was that as a matter of fact, the area of the premises let out is 20 x 50 sq.ft. and not 20 x 30 sq.ft. as averred by the respondents in the petition filed. 4. As a matter of fact, prior to filing of the petition by the respondents as aforesaid, the petitioner had also filed a petition under Sec. 18 of the Act seeking injunction against the respondents not to interfere with his use and occupation of the premises measuring 20 x 50 sq.ft. 5. After due consideration of the evidence on record and the rival submissions, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the area of the premises let out to the petitioner herein is 20 x 30 sq.ft. and not 20 x 50 sq.ft. as claimed. Accordingly, the Rent Tribunal proceeded to decide the petitions by separate order dt. 20.9.17. 6. The petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed in terms that the respondents shall not forcibly dispossess the petitioner herein from the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. and his use and occupation over the rented premises shall not be interfered with. 7. as claimed. Accordingly, the Rent Tribunal proceeded to decide the petitions by separate order dt. 20.9.17. 6. The petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed in terms that the respondents shall not forcibly dispossess the petitioner herein from the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. and his use and occupation over the rented premises shall not be interfered with. 7. The petition preferred by the respondents was also allowed and the injunction was granted in favour of the respondents in terms that the petitioner shall not interfere with the use and occupation of the respondents over the premises which is not part of the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. let out to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal questioning the legality of order dt. 22.9.17 passed by the Rent Tribunal, granting injunction in favour of the respondents. 9. The appeal preferred has been dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 10. It is pertinent to note that in the petition filed, it is not averred that petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal in the petition filed by him, restricting the injunction granted only to the extent of the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. as against the injunction sought for the premises measuring 20 x 50 sq.ft., however, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal in the petition filed by him as well, which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that from the very beginning the petitioner is in possession of the premises measuring 20 x 50 sq.ft. It is submitted that the rent agreement produced by the respondents was a forged document inasmuch as, the tenancy was oral and no such agreement was ever executed. It is submitted that the petitioner had given a blank stamp paper to the respondents for the security purpose which has been used by the respondents for preparing a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal had committed serious error in allowing the petition preferred by the respondents relying upon a forged rent agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner had given a blank stamp paper to the respondents for the security purpose which has been used by the respondents for preparing a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal had committed serious error in allowing the petition preferred by the respondents relying upon a forged rent agreement. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirming the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, which are capricious and perverse, deserves to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal after due consideration of the evidence on record 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. Learned counsel submitted that even in the petition filed by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, a categorical finding was recorded that the area of the premises let out is 20 x 30 sq.ft. and not 20 x 50 sq.ft. as claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner having failed to prove that the area of the premises let out was 20 x 50 sq.ft., the injunction was granted in his favour only in respect of the premises measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 14. Admittedly, the case set out by the respondents was that the premises consisting of 2 rooms, latrine, bathroom and kitchen measuring 20 x 30 sq.ft. was let out to the petitioner on 1.11.09 and a rent agreement was executed. Though, the petitioner asserted that the rent agreement produced on record by the respondents is a forged document but then, the factum of his signature thereon was not disputed. No evidence was brought on record to establish that the rent agreement produced is a forged document. In absence of any evidence contrary, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal that the area covered by the premises let out is 20 x 30 sq.ft. No evidence was brought on record to establish that the rent agreement produced is a forged document. In absence of any evidence contrary, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal that the area covered by the premises let out is 20 x 30 sq.ft. and not 20 x 50 sq.ft. as claimed, cannot be fauled with. 15. As a matter of fact, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal remains a finding of fact, which 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. 16. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.