Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 794 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar, S/o. Babulal Acharya v. Ramesh Chandra Kakani, S/o. Rooplal Kakani

2023-04-10

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:- “I. The order impugned dated 23.07.2019 (Annex.6) may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent the learned Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to pay the rent. II. The order impugned dated 16.12.2019 (Annex.10) may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside. III. The judgment and decree impugned dated 15.02.2019 (Annex.-4) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be stayed. IV. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed. V. The respondents may be restrained not to take any coercive action action the petitioner and further, be restrained not to initiate the execution of the decree dated 15.02.2019. VI. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted. VII. Cost of the writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The dispute in question pertains to the payment of outstanding rental dues with respect to a shop premises, situated near the bus stand of Village-Gangrar, District-Chittorgarh. 3. The principal order assailed by way of the present petition is the order, dated 15.02.2019, passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Chittorgarh whereby the present petitioner-Ashok Kumar was directed to evict the shop premises in question and handover the possession thereof to the respondents no.1 to 3, and make payment of outstanding rental dues towards monthly rent, of Rs. 700/- for a period of 36 months prior to institution of suit, amounting to Rs. 25,200/- at a monthly interest rate of Rs.1/- per Rs.100, amounting to an additional Rs. 2,400/- i.e. a total of Rs. 27,600/- and an amount of Rs. 1,400/- towards use and occupation of the shop premises in question, to respondents no. 1 to 3. 4. Against such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 02/2019, before the learned District Judge, Chittorgarh; vide impugned order dated 23.07.2019, the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh gave certain directions to the petitioner to the effect, amongst others, that he furnish an undertaking that within a period of 15 days from that date, he will make payment of Rs. 25,200/- towards outstanding rental dues to the respondents no. 25,200/- towards outstanding rental dues to the respondents no. 1 to 3, within a period of one month from the date of such order. 5. And against said the order, the petitioner preferred a review, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2019. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds:- 6.1 That the rental agreement (at Annex.1) was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.4, and that a perusal of the same would reveal manipulation in the form of over-writing, of the name of respondent no.2 over that of respondent no.4. And that, the petitioner has made due payments towards rent to the respondent no.4, rent receipts of which are placed at Annex.-2, and that the respondents 1 to 3 do not have a landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner. 6.2 And that, the impugned orders are bad in the eye of the law as the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury as a consequence of having to repay the amount towards rental dues, that which he has already been duly paid by him to respondent no.4. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the impugned orders have been rightly passed, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances and the evidences placed on the record. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 further submitted that the suit, filed for eviction and seeking arrears of rent of the shop premises in question by respondents no. 1 to 3, was decreed in their favour. 8.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not made a full and proper representation of the facts surrounding the case, and that the respondent no. 4 was in fact deposed as a defence witness, before the learned Trial Court, and was not party to such suit. 8.2 Furthermore, that at the appellate stage, the respondent no.4 filed a leave to appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2019. 8.3 That the respondent no.4 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. on 18.12.2019, only after the interim order directing maintenance of status quo was passed, and the review petition was dismissed by the learned Court below. 8.3 That the respondent no.4 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. on 18.12.2019, only after the interim order directing maintenance of status quo was passed, and the review petition was dismissed by the learned Court below. 8.4 And that the petitioner is on the one hand questioning the sanctity of the rental agreement by alleging interpolation and on the other hand alleging that he has made the due payments towards rent, to the respondent no.4 in pursuance of such rent agreement, of the shop premises in question. 9. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 10. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 15.02.2019, framed certain issues and answered the same in the following manner; 10.1 That the petitioner was a tenant of the shop premises in question, the monthly rent of which was Rs. 700/-, that the payment towards the monthly rent by the petitioner was pending since 01.08.2006, and that the same stood lawfully terminated on 30.09.2009. 11. In arriving at such conclusion, the learned Trial Court held that the rent receipts produced on behalf of the petitioner, by respondent no.4, a defence witness in the trial below, was not believable as the same appeared to be concocted in light of the testimony rendered by the respondents no. 1 to 3 which revealed that their father had in fact rented the shop premises in question to the petitioner. And that a diary in this regard was maintained by the father of the respondents no. 1 to 3, of the accounts and other details regarding payments towards rent. 12. This Court also observes that the respondent no. 4 was presented as a defence witness and was not arrayed as a party in the suit before the learned Trial Court. 13. In light of the facts noticed hereinabove, this Court finds that the learned Courts below have rightly proceeded in passing the impugned orders, directing the petitioner to make the necessary payments towards the outstanding dues towards rent of the shop premises in question. 14. The present petition is thus without merit, and does not warrant the interference of this Court, and is therefore dismissed. It is however, directed that the learned trial Court shall decide the suit expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.