Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1655 (RAJ)

Kamla Devi Shotria W/o Shri Madan Lal Shotria v. Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharamsala, Bhilwara through Manager Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharmasala, Bhilwara

2022-05-19

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present batch of writ petitions arise out of the identical facts, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1885/2017 (Kamla Devi Shotria vs. Shri Sitaram Sat. Bhawan Sewa Sami. & Anr.) are being taken into consideration for deciding the present controversy. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were rented shops by the respondent -Shri Sitaram Satsang Bhawan Sewa Samiti, Dharmasala, Bhilwara which is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. The shops were rented on different rents as mentioned in the rent note. In the year 2001, the rent was increased by the society and petitioners agreed to pay the increased rent. In the year 2012, the rent was increased almost ten times of rent of the shop and thereafter the respondents themselves reassessed the rent and reduced the same by 50%. Since the petitioners were threatened by the respondents of eviction from the rented premises, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 18 read with Sections 21 and 23 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. The Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowed the applications of the petitioners vide order dated 25.07.2013 (Annex.10) directing the respondents to revise the increased rent of the rented premises i.e. shops in accordance with Section 6 of the Act of 2001 and the petitioners shall not be evicted without following due process of law. This order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara was challenged by way of filing an appeal by the respondents before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents vide its judgment dated 28.01.2017 (Annex.12). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 21.08.2017, the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are tenants of the shops and are duly paying their rent from time to time and since the respondents increased the rent of the shops in violation of the Act of 2001 and an exorbitant amount of rent was asked from petitioners, therefore, they were forced to file an application before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. He further submits that the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has decided the application correctly in conformity with the provisions of law. He further submits that the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is based on a Notification purportedly issued by the State Government notifying the fact that the suit property belongs to the State Government and since it has been notified as such in the Gazette Notification issued by the State Government, therefore, as per Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Learned Senior Counsel submits that such Notification declaring the suit property to be the State property was never brought on record before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara nor was produced at the time of hearing before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since there is no documentary evidence produced on record even before this Court to show that the suit property belongs to the State Government, the findings recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is incorrect and perverse. Since no other ground has been taken into consideration by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, therefore, the order dated 28.01.2017 is required to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that since the property still continues to be the property under the ownership of respondent No.1, therefore, the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had jurisdiction and their applications were correctly decided by it. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the appellate order dated 28.01.2017 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara does not suffer from any infirmity as sufficient material was placed before the Appellate Authority to show that the shops in question are the properties of the State Government and, therefore, as per Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had no jurisdiction to deal with the applications preferred by the petitioners. She submits that in reply, the entire fact of the shops being under the ownership of the State Government has been placed on record which conclusively goes to show that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is just, proper and correct. She submits that in reply, the entire fact of the shops being under the ownership of the State Government has been placed on record which conclusively goes to show that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is just, proper and correct. She frankly submits that the Gazette Notification mentioned in the appellate order could not be produced before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and in view of the directions issued by this Court also, she is unable to lay her hands on the same for placing it before this Court. She, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the record of the case including the impugned order. 7. The fact of the petitioners being the tenants of the property i.e. shops in question is not disputed and they still continue to be the tenants of the shops of respondent No.1 since the year 1996. The petitioners had been paying the rent due to the respondents from time to time. The petitioners approached the Rent Tribunal on the ground of increased rent in violation of the Act of 2001, and, therefore, their applications preferred under Section 18 read with Section 21 and 23 of the Act of 2001 were allowed. Aggrieved of the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, the respondents preferred an appeal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents on the ground that the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as rented shops of the petitioners are the property of the State Government by virtue of a Gazette Notification issued. It is surprising that neither the date of such Gazette Notification is mentioned nor any particulars of the same have been mentioned by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the Gazette Notification was ever produced before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. The finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is without any basis as no such Gazette Notification has ever been issued. 8. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the Gazette Notification was ever produced before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. The finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is without any basis as no such Gazette Notification has ever been issued. 8. To satisfy with respect to the issuance of the Gazette Notification, this Court on 06.05.2022 directed learned counsel for the respondents to place on record the Gazette Notification mentioned in the appellate order declaring the suit property to be the property of State Government and the matter was placed on 11.05.2022. Again on 11.05.2022, learned counsel for the respondent took last opportunity to get the Gazette Notification for producing the same before this Court and, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 19.05.2022. Today, when a pointed query is made by the Court to learned counsel for the respondents for producing the copy of the Gazette Notification mentioned by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara before this Court, she frankly submitted that no such notification has been issued by the State Government and, therefore, the same cannot be produced before this Court. The only conclusion which can be drawn by this Court in such circumstances is that the the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has grossly committed an error while deciding the appeals preferred by the respondents solely on the ground of such notification which was never issued and was not in existence on the date of the decision of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and not only that, the same has not been produced before this Court despite having given two opportunities for producing the same. This Court, therefore, can safely presume that such Notification was never issued and, therefore, the basis on which the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has proceeded to allow the appeals preferred by the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Needless to say that if such Notification has not been issued then there is no question of taking into consideration Section 18 of the Act of 2001. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are allowed and the appellate order dated 28.01.2017 is quashed and set aside. 11. However, it is made clear that the order passed in these writ petitions will not prejudice the case of the parties, if any other proceedings in accordance with law are undertaken by them. 12. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are allowed and the appellate order dated 28.01.2017 is quashed and set aside. 11. However, it is made clear that the order passed in these writ petitions will not prejudice the case of the parties, if any other proceedings in accordance with law are undertaken by them. 12. The stay applications and other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.