Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 222 (RAJ)

Rajkumar Moolani v. Tannu Swarnakar

2020-01-23

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT : PRAKASH GUPTA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') against the order dated 2.11.2019 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur in Rent Regular Civil Appeal No. 14/2017, whereby the application filed by the respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') for impleading the Municipal council, Sawai Madhopur as a party-respondent was allowed and Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur was impleaded as a party-respondent no. 2. 2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the landlord filed the original application under Section 6, 9 and 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') against the tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Tribunal'). The tenant filed reply to the said Original Application. The Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 16.5.2017 allowed the original application filed by the landlord and directed the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted shop to the landlord. The landlord was held entitled to get the rent of the tenanted shop @ Rs. 12,000/- from the tenant w.e.f. 2.9.2015 alongwith enhancement thereof @ 5% in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2001. Aggrieved therefrom, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Rent Tribunal'). During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant filed an application for impleading the Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur as a party respondent. The appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 2.11.2019 allowed the application filed by the tenant and impleaded Municipal Council, Sawai madhopur as a party respondent in the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the landlord submitted that in the matter of eviction of premises and recovery of due rent, the only question revolves around the relationship of landlord and tenant. In such a matter between the landlord and tenant, the question of title is not relevant. In the present matter, the tenancy is admitted and the dispute is in regard to eviction and not the title, therefore, questioning the title of the landlord by the tenant is irrelevant. Hence, the impugned order dated 2.11.2019 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and the application filed by the tenant for impleading the Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the impugned order dated 2.11.2019 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and the application filed by the tenant for impleading the Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur deserves to be dismissed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the tenant defended the impugned order. He submitted that the disputed property was allotted by Municipal Council to Chhatta Mal under the State Government's scheme for allotment of kiosks to Kiosk Holders in the year 1984, wherein it was mentioned in condition no. 6 and 7 that the allottee shall not have any right to transfer the property in question and if the property in question is transferred, the allotment shall automatically stand cancelled. He further submitted that despite the aforesaid conditions, the property in question was sold by Chhatta Mal to the Raj Kumar in the year 1998 in violation of the conditions no. 6 & 7 of the allotment. The allotment of the property in question so made in favour of Chhatta Mal was cancelled, Municipal Council issued notice under Section 2, 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 to the tenant for his eviction from the disputed property. In this view of the matter, Municipal Council was necessary and proper party and was rightly impleaded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 2.11.2019, hence no interference therewith is required by this Court. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Indian Red Cross Society Versus Manohar Jaswani reported in 2006 (2) Civil Times 401 (Raj.) (ii) Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh (CONFED) Ltd. Versus Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. 2004 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1128 (iii) Naresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2004(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1134 (iv) Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi & Anr. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 432 (v) Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors. reported in 2016 DNJ (SC) 770 (vi) Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Des Raj Chawla reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 608 (vii) Karunakarn Vs. V. Padmini & Ors. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 610 (viii) Rajasthan Wakf Board Vs. Devki Nandan Pathak & Ors. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 428 (ix) Mukesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Des Raj Chawla reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 608 (vii) Karunakarn Vs. V. Padmini & Ors. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 610 (viii) Rajasthan Wakf Board Vs. Devki Nandan Pathak & Ors. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 428 (ix) Mukesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 334 (x) J. Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Pandiyas & Ors. reported in 014 DNJ (SC) 265 (xi) Bhule Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2014 DNJ (SC) 271 (xii) A. Nawab John & Ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam reported in 2012 DNJ (SC) 720 (xiii) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Surendra Pratap & Ors. reported in 2016 DNJ (SC) 768 Heard. Considered. 6. I am of the considered view that in the eviction mattes, where the sole issue revolves around the relationship of landlord and tenant, the issue of title is not germane. Furthermore no objection with regard to Municipal Council being a necessary and proper party was taken by the tenant in his written statement. Even if the property in question was allotted by Municipal Council to Chhatta Mal and that allotment was subsequently cancelled on the ground of its transfer to Raj Kumar, it cannot be the basis to implead Municipal Council as a party in the original eviction application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The original application was filed for eviction of the tenant and recovery of rent simplicitor, wherein the title cannot be decided. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Rent Tribunal committed an error while impleading the Municipal Council as a party respondent no. 2. 7. In the case of Kanaklata Das and ors. versus Naba Kumar Das and ors. ((2018) 2 Supreme Court case 352) it was held that in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the Landlord and the tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in the tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely the Landlord and the Tenant. 8. In other words, in the tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely the Landlord and the Tenant. 8. In the case of E. Parshuram versus V. Doraiswamy (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 658), it was held that, a Landlord need not be the owner of the premises, therefore the question whether or not the Landlord had failed to inherit absolute title of the suit premises, was irrelevant. 9. In the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh versus Asharfi Lal ((1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 580), it was held that in the eviction suit, what is necessary to be seen is the relationship between the Landlord and the Tenant and the question of title of property is not germane in suit and it may be examined incidentally and cannot be decided finally in an eviction suit. 10. So far as the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Red Cross Society Versus Manohar Jaswani (supra) is concerned, it does not apply in the instant case for the reason that in the aforesaid case, applicability of the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was in question, which is not the situation here in this case. 11. Similarly Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh (CONFED) Ltd. Versus Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. (supra) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court also does not hold the field good for the reason that in the aforesaid case, issue of non applicability of the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on the Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh (CONFED) Ltd. was involved, which is not the situation here in this case. 12. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 2.11.2019 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is set-aside. 13. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, stay application also stands disposed of.