Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 925 (RAJ)

Lakshmi Swaroop Mathur v. Govind Das Malu

2023-04-25

INDERJEET SINGH

body2023
ORDER : (Inderjeet Singh, J.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as "Sub-Tenant") challenging the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the Sub-tenant against the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents (to be referred as "Landlord") filed eviction application against one Shri Om Prakash Gupta and Sub-tenant Laxmi Swaroop Mathur on the ground of default in payment of rent, material alteration, sub-letting and parting with possession. The learned Rent Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- ^^1 & vk;k vthZnkj o izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ds e/; edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k gSA 2 & vk;k vthZnkj /kkjk 6 fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr fdjk;k iqujhf{kr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn gka rks dc ls vkSj fdruk\ 3 & vk;k izR;FkhZ ds n~okjk pkj ekg ls vf/kd vof/k dh fdjk;k jkf'k ckotwn uksfVl fnuakd 27-08-2005 dh izkfIr ds i'pkr Hkh oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k vthZnkj dks ,sMk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze djhr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, bl vk/kkj ij vthZnkjx.k izR;FkZx.k ls fookfnr ifjlj dk [kkyh dCtk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 4 & vk;k izR;FkhZ ds n~okjk fcuk fdlh ;qfDr;qDr dkju ds ewy vthZ izLrqr djus ls 6 ekg iwoZ ls oknxzLr ifj"kj dk mi;ksx miHkkx ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA blfy, bl vk/kkj ij vthZnkj] izR;FkhZ ls oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 5 & vk;k izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 us fcuk vthZnkj dh vuqefr ds izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 dks oknxzLr ifjlj mifdjk;s ij ns fn;k gSA blfy, bl vk/kkj ij vthZnkjx.k izR;FkhZx.k ls fookfnr ifjlj dk [kkyh dCtk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 6 & vk;k izR;FkhZ ds n~okjk oknxzLr ifjlj esa fcuk vthZnkj dh vuqefr ds lkjHkwr ifjorZu dj uqDlku djhr fd;k gSA blfy, bl vk/kkj ij vthZnkjx.k izR;FkhZx.k ls fookfnr ifjlj dk [kkyh dCtk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 7 & vuqrks"k\** 3. Thereafter, after recording of the evidence of the landlord and tenant as well as the sub-tenant, the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the eviction application vide its order dated 25.09.2018. Thereafter, after recording of the evidence of the landlord and tenant as well as the sub-tenant, the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the eviction application vide its order dated 25.09.2018. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the Sub-tenant filed the appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2022. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.04.2022. 4. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Sub-tenant submits that the petitioner is not a sub-tenant or tress-passer in the property rather he has purchased the property in dispute by oral agreement made in the year 1989. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the sale deed was also executed with regard to disputed premises in the year 2014 by the Power of Attorney Holder of the landlords. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal has wrongly decided the issue No.5 with regard to sub-tenancy in favour of the landlord and findings given by the learned Rent Tribunal on the issues with regard to arrears of the rent is also perverse as the petitioner had purchased the property in dispute and thereafter, he has constructed the house over the said property. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal has wrongly applied the explanation to Section 9 E of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as "The Act of 2001"). Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Civil Suit with regard to cancellation of the sale deed is pending and till decision of the said suit, the petitioner may not be evicted from the disputed premises. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed serious illegality in confirming the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal has also committed serious illegality in relying only upon the reply submitted on behalf of the defendant No.1 with regard to sub-tenancy. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal should have considered the registered sale deed, by which, the petitioner became owner of the disputed premises. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal has wrongly presumed that the petitioner is sub-tenant and the same has not been rebutted. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal should have considered the registered sale deed, by which, the petitioner became owner of the disputed premises. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal has wrongly presumed that the petitioner is sub-tenant and the same has not been rebutted. No other argument has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submits that the scope of interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal as well as the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is very limited. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the registered sale deed, by which, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the disputed premises has already been challenged by them in a civil suit and the said Civil Suit is still pending. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the sale deed has been executed by the holder of the power of attorney and they have lodged a criminal case against the petitioner as well as the person who has executed the sale deed and in that matter Police, after investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet before the Competent Court having jurisdiction and the trial is going on against the petitioner and other co-accused. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the FSL report with regard to signature of the landlord has also been placed on record before the Competent Court, which was found forged. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that according to Section 9 E of the Act of 2001, the tenant has parted with the possession of the whole premises without written permission from the landlord, therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in favour of the landlord. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the civil suit with regard to cancellation of the sale deed is based on forged signatures and the same is pending before the learned Trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner before the Appellate Court has also claimed the petitioners possession of the disputed premises by way of adverse possession. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the civil suit with regard to cancellation of the sale deed is based on forged signatures and the same is pending before the learned Trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner before the Appellate Court has also claimed the petitioners possession of the disputed premises by way of adverse possession. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the earlier round of litigation filed by the petitioner before this Court in the matter of Laxmi Swaroop Mathur v. Govind Das Malu (S.B. Civil writ Petition No.16495/2017) decided on 10.10.2017, this Court has held as under:- "The Tribunal under the impugned judgment has held that the issue of purported ownership of the tenanted premises by the petitioner-non-applicant No.2 Laxmi Swaroop Mathur vis-a-vis the applicants landlords Govind Das Malu and Pradeep Kumar Malu was not the subject matter of the eviction petition. Issues of ownership of the tenanted property could not be allowed to intrude upon the landlord-tenant relationship of the applicants Govind Das Malu and Pradeep Kumar Malu on the one hand and the nonapplicant Om Prakash Gupta on the other, whose eviction on the ground of subletting was sought. The Tribunal held that as it was well settled that the issue of ownership could not be a subject matter in an eviction petition laid by a landlord against a tenant, albeit no doubt the issue of landlord and tenant relationship as set up by the landlord in the eviction petition would be determinable by the Rent Tribunal as an essential issue to ascertain its jurisdiction." 6. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma (D) through L.Rs. reported in 2017 (5) SCC 640 , wherein para No.13, it has been held as under:- "13. The legislations made for dealing with such landlord-tenant disputes were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice the Court cannot be over zealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled to possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond reasonable doubt as it is in the case before this Court." 7. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 1 in which in para No.38 it has been held as under:- "38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law." 8. The Powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence upon which the findings on the issues have been recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal or learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. 9. In the present case, the civil suit with regard to cancellation of the sale deed between Sub-tenant and Landlord is pending before the Civil Court, wherein, signatures of the landlord on the power of attorney has been found forged in FSL report. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal on all the issues more particularly, on issue No.1 and issue No.5 is based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same has rightly been confirmed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal on all the issues more particularly, on issue No.1 and issue No.5 is based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same has rightly been confirmed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. This writ petition filed by the Sub-tenant deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, firstly, the Sub-tenant has enjoyed the property in dispute for last about 30 years, secondly, the finding of fact on the issues challenged by the Sub-tenant in this writ petition has been recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal against the Sub-tenant, which has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others (supra), no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thirdly, the petitioner himself has admitted before the learned Rent Tribunal that the brother of the original tenant was residing in the said premises for quite long time and thereafter, he has taken possession of the disputed premises, which shows that the same was without permission of the landlord, fourthly, the petitioner claims to be owner of the property in dispute, for which, the suit for cancellation of the sale deed is admittedly pending before the Civil Court, fifthly, the Landlord has lodged a criminal case against the petitioner and co-accused person with regard to purchase of the disputed premises by forged power of attorney and the trial in the said criminal case is going on before the Competent Court of having jurisdiction, sixthly, the learned Rent Tribunal has recorded the finding on issue No.1 with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the landlord, therefore, the possession of the property in dispute is covered Under Section 9 E of the Act, of 2001, lastly, in my considered view, the finding recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal as well as learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on issue No.5 with regard to sub-tenancy does not require for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.