Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2586 (RAJ)

Pyare Miya v. Abhinav Jain

2022-10-12

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Tonk in Rent Application No.03/2022 whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the rent application filed by the respondents/applicants/landlord, has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents/applicants filed an application under Section 9 and Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, ’the Act of 2001’) against the petitioners/non-applicants seeking their eviction from the tenanted premises as also their dispossession from the premises allegedly encroached upon by them. During its pendency, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the application filed by the respondents on the premise of misjoinder of causes of action. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 17.09.2022, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application filed by the respondents seeking their eviction/dispossession was not maintainable for misjoinder of causes of action. He submits that in addition to seeking eviction from the tenanted premises under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, a prayer was also made to dispossess them from a portion of the property allegedly encroached upon by them. Referring to the provision of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, learned Senior Counsel submits that for seeking a relief arising out of a cause of action not covered under Chapters II and III of the Act of 2001, the respondents were required to file a separate suit which requires separate trial. He submits that the relief of eviction and dispossession could not have been sought in single petition. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 17.09.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed them be allowed. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 reveals that in addition to disputes which are covered under Chapters II and III of the Act of 2001, all the disputes arising in between the landlord and tenants, are to be filed before the learned Rent Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. A perusal of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 reveals that in addition to disputes which are covered under Chapters II and III of the Act of 2001, all the disputes arising in between the landlord and tenants, are to be filed before the learned Rent Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area. Indisputably, the dispute between the parties involved in the rent application filed by the respondents is covered under Section 18 and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. Insofar as contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the respondents were required to file a separate suit seeking their dispossession from the area alleged to be under encroachment as it would entail a separate procedure, cannot be countenanced in view of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 which provides the same procedure and power of the learned Rent Tribunal for every case under the Act, be it under Chapters II and III or under Section 18 of the Act not covered under these Chapters. The scheme of the Act of 2001 does not discriminate in the procedure applicable for a petition filed under Section 9 or for a petition filed under Section 18 of the Act of 2001. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Rent Tribunal did not err in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking dismissal of the rent application. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of merit.