Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 88 (RAJ)

Tara Devi v. Chand Mal

2023-01-09

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09/10/2013 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and the order dated 09/03/2022 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. By the orders impugned, the application preferred by the petitioner for transposition in place of Chand Mal and the application for passing the order of maintaining status quo has been rejected. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Chand Mal preferred an application under Section 9(A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the respondent No.2 -Kailash Chandra Kalya. The application preferred by Chand Mal was pending consideration before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. During the pendency of the application preferred by Chand Mal, the petitioner being the sister of Chand Mal preferred an application for impleading her as party respondent and the same was allowed. After impleading the petitioner as party respondent in the matter, she preferred two applications before Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, wherein a prayer was made that the petitioner may be transposed in place of Chand Mal and the second application was filed with a prayer that the vacant possession of the suit property may not be handed over to Chand Mal and status quo with respect to the property in question may be directed to be maintained. The two applications so preferred by the petitioner were rejected by learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 09/10/2013. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara and the same has also been rejected vide order dated 09/03/2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order passed by learned Rent Tribunal is totally non-speaking and no reasons have been assigned. Merely mentioning the facts, the applications have been rejected only on the ground that the dispute which has been sought to be raised by the petitioner by way of filing these applications cannot be decided as the right, title or ownership cannot be decided by learned Rent Tribunal in the present matter pending before it. The Tribunal has not considered the two applications separately and has, therefore, fell in error while deciding the applications together preferred by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has also decided the matter very causally while affirming the order passed by learned Rent Tribunal. The Tribunal has not considered the two applications separately and has, therefore, fell in error while deciding the applications together preferred by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has also decided the matter very causally while affirming the order passed by learned Rent Tribunal. He further submits that a bare perusal of the order passed by learned Rent Tribunal clearly goes to show that the application preferred for transposition is still pending as no order on that application has been passed. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the orders impugned dated 09/10/2013 and 09/03/2022 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders impugned do not warrant any interference by this Court as the application preferred by Chand Mal for eviction of the property in question has been the subject matter before the Tribunal and the petitioner is trying to agitate the issue before the Tribunal to establish her right, title or ownership, which cannot be decided in the pending application before the Tribunal and, therefore, no error has been committed by the Courts below. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned orders including the relevant record of the case. 7. The undisputed facts in the case are that Chand Mal being brother of the petitioner filed an application for eviction of the suit property against respondent No.2 Kailash Chandra. During the pendency of application under Section 9(A) of the Act of 2001, two applications were preferred by the petitioner to transpose her in place of Chand Mal and for giving the vacant possession of the suit property to her while maintaining the status-quo. The prayers sought for in the applications on the face of it shows that the petitioner being the sister of Chand Mal is seeking to get the relief of right, title or ownership over the property in question to be adjudicated by the Rent Tribunal in the application preferred by Chand Mal. 8. The prayers sought for in the applications on the face of it shows that the petitioner being the sister of Chand Mal is seeking to get the relief of right, title or ownership over the property in question to be adjudicated by the Rent Tribunal in the application preferred by Chand Mal. 8. This Court is firmly of the view that the relief prayed for vide applications cannot be granted by learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara as well as learned Rent Appellate Tribunal and the separate proceedings are required to be instituted for the relief claimed in such applications. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been impleaded as party respondent by the Tribunal in the matter earlier is noted to be rejected only on the ground that while being impleaded as party respondent, the relief claimed can only be within the parameters of the provisions which are holding the field for deciding the rent application and not for deciding the right, title and ownership as has been agitated in the applications so preferred by the petitioner. 10. In view of discussions made above, no error has been committed by learned Rent Tribunal while passing the order dated 09/10/2013 and equally the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has rightly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by a detailed and speaking order which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed being bereft of merit.