Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1121 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar v. Murli Manohar

2023-05-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that on behalf of petitioner that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and :- I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Judgment & Certificate dated 11.07.2022 (Annex-03) passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar in Rent Appeal no. 09/2021 CIS No. 10/2021 to the extent of non-considering the application under section 5 of limitation act may kindly be quashed and delay may be condoned; II. the impugned Judgment & Certificate dated 01.04.2019 (Annex-1) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar in Rent case no.01/2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside in toto with costs. III. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, that on 08.10.2014, the respondent-landlord filed an application (registered as Rent Application no.01/2015) under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001') before learned the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar against the petitioners-tenants seeking payment of rent and arrears thereof, for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.09.2014, to the tune of Rs. 3,23,400/-. 2.1. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2019, allowed the said application and directed the petitioners-tenants to pay the due rent from 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2018 and from 10.07.2018 to 31.03.2019; while adjusting the amount already paid by the petitioners-tenants to the respondent-landlord, through cheques on 10.07.2018 as well as in cash on 04.12.2018. 2.2. Against the said impugned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the petitioners-tenants preferred an appeal, before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar, on 02.12.2021, under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.07.2022, rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; as a consequence whereof, the appeal preferred by the petitioners-tenants also stood dismissed, on the ground of limitation vide the said order. 2.3. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 11.07.2022, rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; as a consequence whereof, the appeal preferred by the petitioners-tenants also stood dismissed, on the ground of limitation vide the said order. 2.3. Thus, aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, impugned herein, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners-tenants, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants submits that the entire due rent has already been credited, from the bank account of the petitioner's wife to the respondent-landlord's bank account; towards repairs of ceiling and other works, hefty amount, with the consent of the respondent-landlord, was incurred by the petitioners-tenants, but the problem of water leakage from ceiling was still subsisting in the premises in question, apart from various other difficulties being faced by the petitioners-tenants. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that due to medical reason and treatment thereof, the petitioners-tenants were not able to do business and also could not take any legal advice for filing of appeal in time; therefore, the appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal was filed, after almost a delay of three years, from the date of passing of the impugned order by the learned Rent Tribunal. 3.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Katiji & Ors 1987 (2) SCC 107 and M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 598 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-tenants, submits that the learned Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the impugned orders, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and upon due appreciation of the material available on record before them. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that in reply to the application under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001, the petitioner-tenant did not mention any transaction claimed to be made from his wife's bank account, and also did not raise any objection regarding the outstanding rent to be paid to the respondent-landlord. 4.2. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that in reply to the application under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001, the petitioner-tenant did not mention any transaction claimed to be made from his wife's bank account, and also did not raise any objection regarding the outstanding rent to be paid to the respondent-landlord. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners-tenants have also not filed any affidavit regarding the ceiling repair work being done of their own, after obtaining oral consent from the respondent-landlord. He further submits that the petitioners-tenants were regularly appearing during the main eviction proceedings, but they did not raise any objection as being taken by them before this Court. 4.3. Learned counsel also submits that the limitation period for filing the appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 is 60 days from the date of passing of the impugned order, but in the present case, the appeal was filed by the petitioners-tenants after a lapse of 2 years and 6 months. 4.4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent-landlord filed an application for payment of due amount of rent against the petitioners-tenants; the same was allowed vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, with a direction to the petitioners-tenants to pay the due amount rent for the period from 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2018 and from 10.07.2018 to 31.03.2019, while making due adjustment of the amount already paid by the petitioners-tenants, through cheque as well as in cash, to the respondent-landlord. The appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants, against the impugned order dated 01.04.2019, before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, alongwith application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11.07.2022. 7. The appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants, against the impugned order dated 01.04.2019, before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, alongwith application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11.07.2022. 7. This Court also observes that the learned Tribunals in the impugned orders clearly stated that the petitioners-tenants, in reply to the aforementioned application of the respondent-landlord, have not made any denial regarding the due rent; though the petitioners-tenants have claimed that with the oral consent of the respondent-landlord, they have incurred hefty amount towards repair of the ceiling on count of water leakage therefrom, but the requisite affidavit was never filed by them. 8. This Court further observes that the appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal has been preferred after an inordinate delay of more than 2 years, that too, without any satisfactory explanation. Therefore, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, alongwith the appeal, which is justified in law. This Court thus observes that both the impugned orders passed by learned Tribunals are well reasoned and do not suffer any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court. 9. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners-tenants also do not render any assistance to their case in this petition. 10. Thus, In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.