Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1435 (RAJ)

Haazra v. LR of Rafeeq

2023-07-25

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and: I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Impugned Judgment & Certificate dated 16.08.2022 (Annex-9) passed by the Learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Rent Appeal No.09/2019 (N.C.V. No.09/2019) ordering the eviction of the Petitioner from the disputed premises, may kindly be quashed and set aside; AND II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Judgment & Certificate dated 29.11.2018 (Annex-07) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro in Eviction Petition No.124/2016 (NCV No.1203/2014) may kindly be affirmed and Consequently, the eviction petition filed by the Respondent (Annex-1) may kindly be rejected in toto; 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." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent-Rafeeq (since deceased represented through LRs) filed an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan against the present petitioner. The learned Rent Tribunal, after hearing the parties, vide the judgment and certificate dated 29.11.2018 dismissed the said eviction petition. 2.1. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment dated 29.11.2018, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereupon, the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and certificate dated 16.08.2022, while allowing the said appeal, ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the eviction petition of the respondent, while clearly holding that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, without duly considering the material available on record before it. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, without duly considering the material available on record before it. Thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the eviction order after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case; it was also recorded in the impugned judgment that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner-tenant and respondent-landlord. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is justified in law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in the impugned judgment clearly held that there is relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioner-tenant and respondent-landlord. It was further observed that there is bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord of the premises in question, and therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer any legal infirmity. 7. This Court also observes that the petitioner did not pay the due rent of the premises in question for last more than 4 months and the petitioner also denied the landlord-tenant relationship. Therefore, the respondent filed the eviction petition and learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide impugned judgment, decided the said appeal in the favour of the respondent and passed the eviction order against the petitioner. 8. 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 petitioner in the present petition. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed, while upholding the impugned judgment and certificate dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the legal representative of the respondent (since deceased) within a period of 30 days from today. All pending applications stand disposed of.