Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 647 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Naveen Bansal

2021-03-19

MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
ORDER : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. Though, the matter comes up on an application No. 1/2019 filed by the respondent seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the undertaking furnished by him on 19.11.2018 to not to proceed further in the pending execution proceedings and continued from time to time; but, on joint request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition was heard today for admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant against the judgment and recovery certificate issued in favour of respondent/appellant/landlord, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur, has been dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the application filed by the respondent under Sections 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity "the Act of 2001") seeking revision of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the rent premises comprising a shop, was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.05.2017. The appeal preferred by the petitioner remained unsuccessful. 4. Assailing the judgment impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below have erred in deciding the Issue No. 6 which pertained to the effect of judgments rendered in previous litigations between the parties/their predecessors-in-interest on the present litigation, without appreciating the material on record. Drawing attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by this Court in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 90/1988, Giriraj Prasad @ Giriraj Sharan through LRs versus Babulal Kasera through LRs, learned counsel submitted that while dismissing the second appeal preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, this Court has held therein that the gift deed dated 06.04.1968 was a sham document and hence, the present application filed by the respondent claiming his right in the suit premises through the gift deed dated 06.04.1968, was not maintainable. Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 216 & Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 216 & Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 Supreme Court cases 329, learned counsel submitted that since the findings of the learned Courts below suffer from perversity on Issue No. 6, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as there is concurrent finding of facts of the Courts below as to the earlier judgments of the Courts in previous litigations between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties, having no bearing upon the present litigation, this Court should be loathe in interfering with such finding under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that this Court has, nowhere in its judgment dated 27.07.2011, cast any aspersion on the validity of the gift deed dated 06.04.1968. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. The fulcrum of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner qua Issue No. 6, is that once in earlier round of litigation between the parties, it was held that the gift deed dated 06.04.1968, the whole basis of claim of the respondent as to his title in the suit property, is a fake and sham document, the judgment of revision of rent and eviction against him is not sustainable. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2011 passed in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 90/1988 which arose out of dismissal of suit filed by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner from the suit premises. One of the grounds therein for which the eviction was sought, pertained to denial of title of the plaintiff by the defendant. One of the grounds therein for which the eviction was sought, pertained to denial of title of the plaintiff by the defendant. The substantial questions of law as framed by this Court in the second appeal are noteworthy to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which read as under:- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff in the suit premises particularly in view of the fact of his having admitted the gift of the shop in favour of the plaintiff by Ramcharan Lal in the suit for determination of the standard rent filed by the defendant in July, 1968 soon after the execution of the gift deed? (ii) Whether in view of the fact he had accepted the derivative title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises the defence was estopped from disputing the fact that the plaintiff was his landlord?" 8. Therefore, it is apparent that instead of the genuineness and validity of the gift deed being a direct and substantial issue involved in the second appeal, the question was as to whether the contentions raised by the defendant therein doubting the validity of the gift deed despite having admitted its execution in another suit, tantamounted to denial of the title of the plaintiff. In that backdrop, this Court proceeded to held that since the tenant had right to question the derivative title of transferee of his landlord, it did not furnish a good ground of eviction to the appellant landlord, the dispute raised being bonafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any finding in the judgment dated 27.07.2011 whereby the gift deed dated 06.04.1968 was held to be a fake or sham transaction. 9. Even otherwise also, the petitioner has, in his reply (Annexure-3) to the application filed by the respondent, submitted that in response to notice issued by the respondent to him to deposit arrears of rent, he has already deposited the rent in the respondent's bank account till September, 2014 and hence, no rent was due. 9. Even otherwise also, the petitioner has, in his reply (Annexure-3) to the application filed by the respondent, submitted that in response to notice issued by the respondent to him to deposit arrears of rent, he has already deposited the rent in the respondent's bank account till September, 2014 and hence, no rent was due. A perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner in its entirety reveals that he has nowhere disputed the claim of the respondent being his landlord; rather, at number of places, it has been stated that on asking of the respondent, arrears of rent have been deposited in his bank account and he was not in default of payment of rent. 10. As per the Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2001, the definition of 'landlord' reads as under:- "2. (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) "Landlord" means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;" 11. Undisputedly, the petitioner has paid rent to the respondent without raising any doubt as to his competence to receive the same, therefore, he is estopped from challenging status of the respondent being his landlord claiming the gift deed dated 06.04.1968 having been held to be a sham transaction in earlier round of litigation which; otherwise also, he has failed to establish. It is trite that in an application seeking eviction, the applicant is not required to establish his title qua the rented premises and to have a recovery certificate, it is sufficient that if he establishes relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. From the material on record, it is beyond any doubt that the respondent has been successful in establishing such relationship. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 12. Since, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. 13. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. The pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.