Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 33 (RAJ)

Sushil Kumar v. Rajendra Kumar Daga

2023-01-03

REKHA BORANA

body2023
ORDER 1. The present appeals were admitted on 13.01.2016 and were directed to be listed for final disposal on 19.02.2016. After that the matters were continuously listed before this Court and adjournments were granted. The interim order dated 13.01.2016 was directed to be continued till next date. On 25.10.2017, it was again ordered that the matters be listed on 07.11.2017 for final disposal. On that date also the interim order was directed to be continued till the next date of hearing. On 07.11.2017, last opportunity was granted for filing the reply and the matters were directed to be listed on 23.11.2017. After that the matters were continuously listed but were not argued and were adjourned. On 16.02.2022, the matters were listed on applications for early listing which were allowed and the appeals were directed to be listed on 05.03.2022. After that the appeals were listed on 05.03.2022, 29.03.2022, 05.05.2022 and 11.07.2022 and on all these dates the appeals were adjourned on a request made by learned counsel for the appellants. On 17.08.2022, last opportunity was granted to learned counsel for the appellants to argue out the matters and the matters were directed to be listed on 15.09.2022. On 15.09.2022 again last opportunity was granted and the matters were directed to be listed on 22.09.2022. On 22.09.2022, the matters were directed to be listed on the very next day i.e. on 23.09.2022. On 23.09.2022 again time was sought by learned counsel for the appellants to argue out the matters and again the last opportunity was granted. The matters were directed to be listed on 13.10.2022. After that date, learned counsel appearing for the appellants changed and the matters were listed on 25.11.2022. On that date, the matters were directed to be listed in hearing category on 12.12.2022. On 12.12.2022, the matters were adjourned for 14.12.2022 as none was present on behalf of the appellants. On 14.12.2022, at the request of learned counsel the appellants, the matters were directed to be listed on 16.12.2022. On 16.12.2022 again a request was made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants and the matters were directed to be listed on 02.01.2023. On that date, it was made clear that no further adjournment would be granted in the matters at any cost. On 02.01.2023 i.e. yesterday, when the matters were listed Mr. On 16.12.2022 again a request was made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants and the matters were directed to be listed on 02.01.2023. On that date, it was made clear that no further adjournment would be granted in the matters at any cost. On 02.01.2023 i.e. yesterday, when the matters were listed Mr. S.S. Ladrecha appeared for the appellants and submitted that now he would be appearing in the matters and prayed for time to argue the matters. On his request, the matters were directed to be listed today i.e. on 03.01.2023. 2. Today also, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for time to argue out the matters. Learned counsel submitted that the matters are listed in orders category and therefore, he is not prepared for hearing. 3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, the Court proceeded on to hear on the issue whether there is any ground for confirmation of the interim order dated 13.01.2016. 4. The present one is a suit for eviction filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Issue No.1 pertaining to the termination of tenancy vide notice dated 05.07.2004 has been decided by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff landlord. The core question which is in issue in the present appeals is whether a suit for eviction filed in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer Property Act would proceed/be maintainable before a Civil Court after coming of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 2001') in effect. Regarding the said issue, a reference was made to the Division Bench of this Court and the D.B. Civil Reference No.01/2015: K. Ramnarayan Vs. Pukhraj was decided on 26.10.2017 whereby the reference was answered in the following terms: '44. The reference is accordingly answered in terms of paras 31 and 43 above. Meaning thereby, once the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 was extended to the municipal areas, the Civil Courts would lose jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. No tenant could be evicted by a Civil Court. The eviction had to be as per the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 and on the grounds specified in Section 9 thereof. Even where decrees of ejectment had been passed by the Civil Courts and matters were pending consideration in appeal, the civil proceedings would lapse. No tenant could be evicted by a Civil Court. The eviction had to be as per the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 and on the grounds specified in Section 9 thereof. Even where decrees of ejectment had been passed by the Civil Courts and matters were pending consideration in appeal, the civil proceedings would lapse. ' 5. The aforesaid view and proposition, answered in K. Ramnarayan's case (supra), was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1551/2018: Pukhraj Vs K. Ramnarayan, wherein the Supreme Court entertained the SLP and stayed operation of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid D.B. Civil Reference No.01/2015. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP on 05.03.2018 reads as under: 'Until further orders, there shall be stay of the operation of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil ReferenceNo.1 of 2015.' 6. After the stay of the operation of the order dated 26.10.2017 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, several matters involving the said issue were adjudicated and decided with a specific finding that once the order dated 26.10.2017 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the judgment passed in the reference would not apply further and therefore, the matters/appeals deserve to be heard and to be decided. Following the said proposition recently in the case of Kamalchand Savan Sukha Vs. Sohanlal Jain: S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.120/2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held as under: 'In the opinion of this Court, for civil suits of eviction, which have been instituted before coming into force of the Act of 2001, the proceedings should be allowed to continue till culmination according to the TP Act. The law and procedure of the Act of 2001may be allowed to be followed only for those eviction proceedings, which are filed after coming into force of the Act of 2001. The substantive provisions of the TP Act as applicable at the time of institution of the civil suit and commencement of the trial of the civil suit should continue to be applicable to such proceedings. The substantive provisions of the TP Act as applicable at the time of institution of the civil suit and commencement of the trial of the civil suit should continue to be applicable to such proceedings. The order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is well clear and gives a clear reflection that by staying the operation of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench in the Reference case of K. Ramnarayan (supra), same is not required to be given effect to and need not be followed further and thus, the pending or decided eviction proceedings under the provisions of the TP Act may continue despite coming into force ofthe Act of 2001.' 7. Moresoever, in a recent judgment in the case of Shankarlal Nadani Vs. Sohanlal Jain: Civil Appeal No.2816/2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court too proceeded on the said proposition and held as under: '28. Under the Act in question, Section 18 does not talk about the validity of any decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. After the applicability of the Act to the area in question, the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court. However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit.' 8. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act of 2001 were not in force in Suratgarh at the time of filing the present suit for eviction. The provisions of Act of 2001 were extended to the municipal area of Suratgarh w.e.f. 11.05.2015 and the present suit was filed in the year 2005. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act of 2001 were not in force in Suratgarh at the time of filing the present suit for eviction. The provisions of Act of 2001 were extended to the municipal area of Suratgarh w.e.f. 11.05.2015 and the present suit was filed in the year 2005. Therefore, the suit was validly decided by the Civil Court and the decree cannot be set aside on that ground. 9. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the appellants have failed to make out a case for confirmation of the interim order dated 13.01.2016. Moreover, it is clear on record that the matters are sought to be got adjourned someway or the other since last one year and despite last opportunities being granted to argue out the matters more than seven times, today also, learned counsel for the appellants expressed his inability to argue out the matters. 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to confirm the interim order dated 13.01.2016 and the same is therefore, vacated. 11. Let the appeals be listed for final hearing in the month of April, 2023. 12. Stay petitions stand dismissed accordingly.