Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1641 (RAJ)

Praveen Malhotra v. Mohan Singh

2023-09-02

NUPUR BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully stayed that the present petition for writ may kindly be allowed and an order impugned dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure-6) passed the learned execution court in execution case No.42/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside." 2. The facts of the case are that a godown measuring 20X40 sq. ft., situated at 160, Gol Bazar (Tractor Market), Sriganganagar, owned by one Satinder Singh was let out to Shri. Jagdish Rai, who was the father of the petitioner and the rent was fixed @ Rs. 150/- per month. In the year 2008, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') on the ground of bonafide need stating that on 22.03.2005, the rented permises was purchased by them from Satinder Singh and each of them is having 1/3 share in the rented premises. After service upon the petitioner, the petitioner filed reply to the application denying the facts mentioned in the application. 3. After service upon the petitioner, the petitioner filed reply to the application denying the facts mentioned in the application. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') allowed the application vide order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1) while directing as under:- ^^¼1½ vthZnkjx.k izR;FkhZx.k ls vthZ ds en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlk] 160 xksy cktkj ¼V~SDVj ekfdZV½ Jhxaxkuxj] tks rhu eaftyk cuh gqbZ gS] Hkwfery o izFkery ds chp esa ,d fe;keh cuh gqbZ gS] Hkwfery ds mRrjh fgLls ls ,d dejk cuk gqvk gS tks mRrjeq[kh gS] dks NksMdj 'ks"k Hkwfery o blds mij cuh gqbZ lEiw.kZ fe;kuh dks NksMdj lkbZt 20 xq.kk 40 QqV gS] dk [kkyh dCtk jktLFkku fdj;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 15¼8½ ds ijUrqd ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj vkns'k dh fnukad ls N% ekg i'pkr izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA ¼2½ izR;FkhZx.k }kjk fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj [kkyh dj vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekg esa dCtk vthZnkjx.k dks laHkyk;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vthZnkjx.k vthZ izLrqfr fnukad ls dCtk laHkyk;s tkus rfd fdjk;k crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh izR;FkhZ ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA ¼3½ ;fn izR;FkhZx.k dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ds izek.k i= tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekl ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj ifjlj [kkyh ugha djrs gS] rks vthZnkjx.k dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ds izek.k&i= ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu xqus dh nj ls fu"dklu ifjlj rd fdjk;k crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh vfrfjDr U;k; 'kqYd fu;ekuqlkj vnk dj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA rnuqlkj dCts dh iqu% izkfIr ,oa olwyh izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tkosA** 4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 (Annex.2). 5. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 (Annex.2), the petitioner preferred SBCWP No.3495/2019 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2020, disposed of the writ petition while granting some time for vacating the premises in dispute and also directed the petitioner to pay mesne profit @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, w.e.f. February, 2020 till the date of vacation of the premises in dispute. 6. The petitioner, in terms of the said judgment, had already paid arrears of rent prior to February, 2020 @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, w.e.f. February, 2020 till the date of vacation of the premises in dispute. 6. The petitioner, in terms of the said judgment, had already paid arrears of rent prior to February, 2020 @ Rs. 1500/- per month and since February, 2020, the petitioner deposited Rs. 4,000/- per month in the bank account as provided by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application for execution of the order dated 20.07.2016 (Annex.1) before the learned Tribunal to which the petitioner filed reply. 8. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2021 (Annex.6) while issuing warrant for recovery of possession. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 16.01.2021, has preferred the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited the entire arrears of rent up to January, 2020 and that he has also deposited enhanced mesne profit @ Rs. 4,000/- per month pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 23.01.2020 (Annex.3). Hence, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that as the petitioner has complied with the direction of this Court, there was no requirement of issuing warrant for recovery of possession against the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has fixed the mesne profit @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from February, 2020, thus, the petitioner was not required to pay three times rent to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in light of the direction of the Rent Tribunal dated 20.04.2016 and hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order dated 16.01.2021 (Annex.6). 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the mesne profit, as ordered by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1) under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act of 2001 is not required to be complied with looking to the fact that by order dated 23.01.2020 (Annex.3), this Court had already ordered the petitioner to pay the mesne profit and thus, the impugned order dated 16.01.2021 (Annex.6) deserves to be quashed and aside. 12. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has not complied with the directions passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1), whereby the petitioner was specifically directed to pay rent @ three times if the petitioner does not vacate the premises in-dispute and thus, the learned court below has rightly passed the order dated 16.1.2021. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. This is an admitted fact that the order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1) is still in force as the same was not quashed and set aside by the Appellate Tribunal or by this Court and this Court finds that the petitioner withdrew the earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3495/2019 while praying for some time to be granted to vacate the premises in-dispute and also agreed to pay enhanced mesne profit to the respondent upon which this Court passed the order dated 23.1.2020 and the same is reproduced hereunder :- "After attempting to make submissions for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for extra time to vacate the premises and submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay enhanced mesne profit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to allow time to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises by 30th June, 2021, and allow mesne profit to the respondent until the petitioner vacates the suit premises @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the month of February, 2020 till 30th June, 2021. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The stay application is also dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the suit premises by 30th June, 2021 on the following conditions:- "(i) the petitioner shall submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the Rent Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today to the effect that on or before 30th June, 2021, he shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent landlord. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the premises nor to make any alternation and not to assign/sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the premises nor to make any alternation and not to assign/sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance. (ii) the petitioner shall deposit the arrears within a period of four weeks, if any, of the rent/mesne profit and of the decretal amount and shall further pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01st February, 2020 or deposit the same in the saving bank account of the respondent-landlord month by month on or before 15th day of the next month. The respondent-landlord or learned counsel for the respondent will give the details of the bank account, in which, the arrears of rent or mesne profit/month to month mesne profit will be deposited, to the petitioner or counsel for the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. (iii) it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions or violates any terms of the undertaking, then it will be open for the respondent-landlord to get the recovery certificate executed forthwith in accordance with law. No costs." 15. Hence, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is an under obligation to make necessary compliance of the order dated 20.04.2016 (Annex.1), passed by the Rent Tribunal. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 17. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.