Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 8 (RAJ)

Satnam Motocorp Pvt. Ltd. v. Kinshuk Sharma S/o. Shri Shiv Sharan Sharma

2022-01-04

MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
ORDER : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. Heard the applicant-landlord on the application No. 1/2021 wherein prayers have been made to initiate due proceeding against the review-petitioners and their Advocate under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as also to direct the concerned police officials to provide adequate security to him and his family till pendency of the dispute between the parties. 2. The gravamen of allegation in the application is that the review-petitioners and his counsel are preventing the applicant-landlord in attending the proceedings of the review petition. The applicant-landlord has failed to make out any case to entertain the prayers made in the application. He has been regularly attending the Court proceedings in the review petition and on none of the occasions, he has stated that he was prevented by the petitioners or for that matter, their counsel from attending the Court or making his submission. There has been no interference in the administration of justice and hence, the prayer to draw contempt proceeding does not merit acceptance. In so far as another prayer of the applicant-landlord seeking a direction to provide him and his family member adequate security is concerned, he is free to avail appropriate remedy available under the law but, this Court is not inclined to entertain such prayer in the review petition. 3. The application is dismissed accordingly. 4. This review petition has been filed by the respondents-tenant seeking recalling of the order dated 22.07.2020 passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4803/2020 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has been directed to decide the Eviction Petition No. 502/2018, Kinshuk Sharma versus M/s. Satnam Motocorp Pvt. Ltd. and another within a period of two years from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners, drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14772/2019, M/s. Satnam Motocorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kinshuk Sharma and another connected writ petition, submitted that therein, this Court has declined to entertain the prayer of the petitioner-landlord to lay down any time limit for deciding the eviction petition but, concealing this material fact, he filed a writ petition No. 4803/2020 which came to be decided by this Court vide ex-parte order dated 22.07.2020 in the manner as stated hereinabove. Learned counsel submitted that it was obligatory upon the petitioner-landlord to have disclosed before this Court as to denial of similar prayer, i.e., to decide the eviction petition filed by him within any specified time period, in absence whereof, the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2020 needs to be recalled and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He, relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors., (2020) 14 SCC 210 , Om Prakash Ram v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 281 and T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467 , in support of his submissions. 6. Per contra, the petitioner-landlord submitted that he has placed along with the writ petition copies of entire order-sheets of the learned Rent Tribunal to demonstrate that every endeavour was being made by the review-petitioners-tenant to stall the eviction proceedings. He submitted that he never made any prayer in the earlier writ petition filed by him to decide the eviction petition within specific time period. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the review petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the landlord, present in person and perused the record. 8. The order dated 16.09.2019 was passed by this Court in the writ petitions preferred by the review-petitioners-tenant as well as by the landlord against the order dated 31.07.2019 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has partly allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 19-A of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity "the Act of 2001"). While deciding the writ petitions, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that though, the eviction application was filed in the year 2018 and the eviction petitions are required to be decided in expeditious manner, however, it was not inclined to lay down any time limit for deciding the controversy. It was further observed that the Tribunal may make an endeavour to proceed in the matter after giving due opportunity to both the parties. 9. Indisputably, in his earlier writ petition filed by the landlord, he did not seek a direction for the learned Tribunal to decide the eviction application filed by him within any specified period. It was further observed that the Tribunal may make an endeavour to proceed in the matter after giving due opportunity to both the parties. 9. Indisputably, in his earlier writ petition filed by the landlord, he did not seek a direction for the learned Tribunal to decide the eviction application filed by him within any specified period. Even the order dated 16.9.2019 does not reflect that the landlord has prayed therein to direct the learned Tribunal to decide the eviction application within any time period which could be turned down by this court. In absence of any prayer in the earlier writ petition as also before this Court on earlier occasion thereby seeking a direction for the learned Tribunal to decide the eviction petition within any specified time period, this Court is not satisfied that the observations by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 16.9.2019 amounted to such material fact, suppression of which could non-suit the landlord in filing a writ petition seeking a direction for disposal of the eviction petition within six months/a specified period. 10. Even otherwise also, in view of Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001, this Court is not inclined to recall the direction issued vide order dated 22.7.2020 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal has been directed to decide the eviction petition within a period of two years from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 11. For ready reference, Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001 is quoted as under: 15. Procedure for eviction of tenant- (5) The Rent Tribunal shall thereafter fix a date of hearing which shall not be later than one hundred and eighty days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. The petition shall be disposed of within a period of two hundred and forty days from the date of service of notice on the tenant." 12. This Court is in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Satyan (supra), Om Prakash Ram (supra) & T. Arivandandam (supra) but, the same has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Resultantly, this review petition is dismissed devoid of merit.