Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1501 (RAJ)

Balkishan v. Gulab Surana

2022-05-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short the trial court hereinafter) in Original Civil Suit No. 75/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for eviction of shop in question and for recovery of due rent against the petitioner under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The said suit is pending consideration before the trial court in which the petitioner put in his appearance and also filed his written statement. 3. On 26.07.2016, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to allow him to make amendment in his written statement. In the said application, the petitioner sought permission to incorporate a ground to the effect that since in the Municipal Area, Sujangarh also, the Rent Control Act, 2001 came into force w.e.f. 11.07.2014, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent before the civil court for eviction is not maintainable. The said application was objected by the respondent and the trial court vide impugned order has dismissed the said application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the decision passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench on 26.10.2017 rendered in D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2015 titled as "K. Ramnarayan v. Shri Pukhraj", suit filed by the respondent before the trial court for eviction and recovery of rent is not maintainable with the enforcement of Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001 in the Municipal Area, Sujangarh, where the property in question is situated. It is submitted that the trial court has illegally rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the operation of judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramnarayan v. Shri Pukhraj (supra) has already been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the ground sought to be incorporated in the written statements filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed. Learned counsel has submitted that the said observation of the trial court is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has submitted that the said observation of the trial court is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is prayed that a direction be issued to the trial court to allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramnarayan v. Shri Pukhraj (supra) has held that with the enforcement of the Act of 2001 in a municipal area, no civil court can entertain an eviction petition. However, the operation of the said judgment of the Division Bench has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP and the same is still pending and this fact has also not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shankerlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 119/2021, reported in 2022(1) DNJ (Raj.) 31 considering the above fact situation has held as under: "25. The order dated 5.3.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is well clear and gives a clear reflection that by staying the operation of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench in the Reference case of K. Ramnarayan (supra), same is not required to be given effect to and need not be followed further and thus, the pending or decided eviction proceedings under the provisions of the TP Act may continue despite coming into force of the Act of 2001." 8. It is noticed that the judgment passed in Shankerlal Nadani's case (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2816/2022 decided on 12.04.2022. 9. In view of the observation made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shankerlal Nadani's case (supra) and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 10. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Stay petition also stands dismissed.