Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2057 (RAJ)

Madan Lal Jhalani v. Anil Kumar Jain

2022-07-19

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
ORDER 1. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents after service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court had issued notices to the respondents and notices were duly served upon them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner had to move an application again for effective service on the respondent Nos.1 & 2 through paper publication, and as such, the prayer was accepted by this Court on 30.11.2021, and permission was granted to effect service on the respondents- tenants through paper publication. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the paper publication was done, and as such, report was filed in the Registry and service was treated as complete as per office report dated 11.02.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had moved early hearing application and the same was allowed by this Court. This Court finds that no one has appeared today despite of service being effected on the respondents on two occasions. 6. This Court accordingly, decided to hear learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that application was filed by the petitioners under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') before the Rent Tribunal Jaipur, and the said application was decided by the Court by order dated 15.02.2006, and the Court had revised the rent of the suit premises from Rs. 140 per month to Rs.534 per month with effect from 01.04.2003 and after 01.04.2003, the rent was to be increased 5% per year. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal was put to challenge by the respondents by filing an appeal under Section 19 (6) of the Act of 2001. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by impugned order dated 08.08.2006, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal has been modified and the direction which was given to pay the revised rent is made applicable only against one person- Anil Kumar Jain, and direction to pay rent by another person- Vimal Kumar Jain, has been modified. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has committed illegality in modifying the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and the respondent-Anil Kumar Jain is liable to pay rent to the present petitioners. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has committed illegality in modifying the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and the respondent-Anil Kumar Jain is liable to pay rent to the present petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only on the ground of respondent-Anil Kumar Jain, joining the Government service, has been left out and his responsibility is not fixed to pay the rent and the reason assigned by the court below, is not legally sustainable. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original tenant of the petitioners was one Smt. Munna Devi and before filing application under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act, the said original-tenant Smt. Munna Devi had expired, and as such, the legal representatives of Smt. Munna Devi i.e. both the sons Anil Kumar Jain & Vimal Kumar Jain were made parties by the present petitioners in their application, and as such, the legal heirs of late Smt. Munna Devi, were required to pay the rent to the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the distinction between the contractual tenancy and statutory tenancy has been made by by the Apex Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Eileen K. Patricia D'Rozarie; AIR 1995, Supreme Court 515. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the said judgment submitted that the tenant if dies before filing of an application, then all the legal heirs of the said tenant, are required to be arrayed as the party in the eviction proceedings as per principle laid down by the Apex Court, the Court below has wrongly omitted name of the respondent-Anil Kumar. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that merely on account of joining the government job, the legal heir of original tenant late Smt. Munna Devi, cannot absolve of their responsibility to pay the revised rent to the petitioners. 16. This Court finds that in the present case the petitioners had filed application before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur and they specifically pleaded in the application that the legal heirs of late Smt. Munna Devi were responsible to pay the revised rent, as the original-tenant Smt. Munna Devi had expired on 01.05.1987, and the application was filed by the petitioners in the year 2003. 17. 17. This Court further finds that the Apex Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha & Ors. (supra) has also made the clear distinction between the contractual tenancy and statutory tenancy. 18. In the case of statutory tenancy, the person who is actually residing or occupying the premise in question, need to be brought on record, as a legal heir, and in other cases if the tenant dies before the application is filed, then in such eventuality all the legal heirs of the tenant should be brought on record. 19. This Court considering the law laid down by the Apex Court, finds that the impugned order dated 08.08.2006, suffers from serious legal infirmity and the respondent-Anil Kumar has wrongly been left out to pay revised rent as per order dated 15.02.2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur. 20. This Court accordingly allows the writ petition and set-aside the order dated 08.08.2006, to the extent of deleting the name of respondent No.1-Anil Kumar Jain to pay revised rent to the petitioners.