Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 81 (RAJ)

Lrs of Damodar Bang v. Govind Singh

2023-01-06

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 28.6.2022 (Annex.5) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 15(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'), has been rejected. 2. The proceedings for eviction were initiated by the respondents - landlord against the petitioners seeking eviction from the shop in question. The petition was filed under provisions of Section 9(i) and 9(j) of the Act indicating bonafide necessity of the landlord to expand the existing hotel into a 4 star hotel. 3. During pendency of the petition, the petitioners filed an application under Section 15(6) of the Act inter alia suggesting that as the petitioners have claimed in the petition that they would seek eviction of all other tenants from the Pipad House, of which, the premises involved in the petition was a small part, the petitioners were prepared to give an undertaking and get a decree passed that as and when the landlord gets all other tenants evicted from the Pipad House and starts demolishing the property in question, they would vacate the premises and, therefore, the landlord be called upon to settle the issue raised on the said proposal given by the petitioner. 4. The application was contested by the respondents - landlord. 5. The Rent Tribunal by its order impugned came to the conclusion that as the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners for evicting the premises was conditional, which is not the intention of provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act, no direction as prayed could be issued and consequently, rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application, it should have at least make efforts for conciliation or settlement of the dispute between the parties and as no such effort was made, the rejection of the application is not justified. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application, it should have at least make efforts for conciliation or settlement of the dispute between the parties and as no such effort was made, the rejection of the application is not justified. 7. Submissions were also made that once the landlord was seeking eviction of the petitioners for constructing a 4 star hotel, till such time that the other tenants are evicted from the suit premises, evicting the petitioners, who were in possession of a small portion of the property, would not be justified and, therefore, a fair proposal was made by the petitioner, which should have been accepted by the landlord and directions should have been issued by the Rent Tribunal and, therefore, on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioners by filing application under Section 15(6) of the Act was ex facie baseless, inasmuch as, if such plea was sought to be permitted, all other tenants, against whom the proceedings have been initiated for eviction, would seek similar relief, which would result in the landlord being deprived of seeking eviction of any of the tenants from the suit premises. 9. Further submissions have been made that the provisions are directory only and the landlord cannot be forced to enter into a compromise on an application made by the tenant and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. The provisions of Section 15(6) of the Act, insofar as relevant, reads as under:- '(6) The Rent Tribunal during the course of such hearing may hold such summary inquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition. The Rent Tribunal may also make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between the Parties.' 12. A perusal of the above provision reveals that the provision is enabling, wherein, the Rent Tribunal may also make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between the parties. The Rent Tribunal may also make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between the Parties.' 12. A perusal of the above provision reveals that the provision is enabling, wherein, the Rent Tribunal may also make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between the parties. Merely because the Rent Tribunal has been given power to make efforts for conciliation or settlement of dispute between the parties, the same cannot and does not make the said provision mandatory, in case, one of the parties seek settlement of the dispute. 13. The very fact that the matter can be decided based on conciliation or settlement, necessarily means that both the parties have to agree to such conciliation/settlement. Once the landlord choose not to accept the proposal made by the tenant, the Rent Tribunal could not force conciliation/settlement of dispute between the parties. The basis on which the Rent Tribunal has rejected the application appears to be justified as the petitioners instead of providing for a timeline for vacating the premises, sought to make it conditional, whereby other tenants would be evicted and when the landlord would start demolishing the property in question. It cannot be said that the Rent Tribunal committed any error in rejecting the application. 14. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.