Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2247 (RAJ)

Parmanand v. Manbhar Devi Meena

2023-12-14

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2023
ORDER : Avneesh Jhingan, J. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 15.11.2022 dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent on 28.11.2018 sought eviction on account of non-payment of rent by filing petition under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001') at Jaipur. During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 claiming that there is no tenant-landlord relationship between the parties and as per the report of the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 429/2018 registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, the land in question is Government land. The application was rejected considering that there is rent deed between the parties and the issue as to whether there is landlord-tenant relationship, is to be decided in the main petition and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sections 2 & 3 of the Act of 2001 do not apply in the facts of the present case as the Investigating Officer has prepared a report that the land in question was not owned by the respondent. He further submits that there is no cause of action for the respondent to file the eviction proceedings. 4. He further submits that there is no cause of action for the respondent to file the eviction proceedings. 4. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is reproduced below: "11.Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]" 5. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merit. 6. Order 7 Rule 11(a) has been relied upon. The plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 can be rejected where the plaint does not disclose the cause of action, it is not case in hand as eviction proceedings have been filed on the ground of non-payment of rent. Prima facie to establish the tenant-landlord relationship, copy of the rent agreement has been produced by respondent. It is trite law that a debatable issue and the fact for which evidence need to be adduced cannot form basis for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. It would not be out of place to mention that report of the Investigating Officer in a FIR case shall not be a basis to decide the ownership of property. 7. No case is made out for interference by this Court, the petition is dismissed.