Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 226 (RAJ)

Shivlal v. Ramesh

2024-02-07

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal") in Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020 (CIS No.04/2020) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"), has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the original application filed by the respondent No.1/landlord (for brevity "the landlord") under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity as also material alteration, came to be allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu vide final order dated 17.02.2020 where against, the tenant filed an appeal which is pending consideration in the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therein, the tenant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking appointment of the Site Commissioner which has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dated 08.09.2020, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the tenant would submit that the landlord has concealed the fact that he also has eight other shops under his possession. He further submits that while dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not consider that the material alteration alleged to be carried out by him, was of temporary nature and for adjudicating upon this issue, appointment of the Site Commissioner was imperative. Inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2001, he submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to take evidence even at the appellate stage. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 08.09.2020 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord opposed the prayer. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 08.09.2020 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord opposed the prayer. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. While dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has held that the landlord has filed the eviction application on 11.04.2012 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of material alteration as well as reasonable and bona fide necessity wherein, the tenant appeared on 15.05.2012 and after giving both the parties sufficient and full opportunity to lead evidence, the rent application came to be decided on 31.08.2020, i.e., eight years after presentation of the application. It has further been observed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that there was sufficient evidence led by both the parties on record to adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the matter and there was no occasion for appointment of Site Commissioner to collect the evidence in favour of the tenant. Despite opportunity, learned counsel for the tenant could not satisfy this Court that either the order dated 08.09.2020 suffers from any illegality, perversity or manifest error of law so as to warrant interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India or any justification for appointment of the Site Commissioner to collect evidence in favour of the tenant for which he was given ample opportunity by the learned Rent Tribunal during course of trial. 7. Further, this Court has also gone through the contents of the application filed the tenant and finds it to be bereft of even a whisper of averment that any of the incidents, for which appointment of the Site Commissioner is sought, has arisen post decision dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. It also does not reflect what prevented the tenant from moving similar application before the learned Rent Tribunal at the appropriate stage or what prevented him from leading evidence on these aspects. 8. True that under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is empowered to take evidence; but, it is only in exceptional circumstances and in its garb, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be permitted to usurp the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal. 9. 8. True that under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is empowered to take evidence; but, it is only in exceptional circumstances and in its garb, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be permitted to usurp the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal. 9. In view thereof, this Court is satisfied that the application was filed by the tenant malafidely only to delay disposal of the pending appeal and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/-. Out of the aforesaid cost, a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited by the tenant with the Litigants Welfare Fund and rest Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the landlord within a period of four weeks from today. 11. Looking to the fact that the Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020 (CIS No.04/2020) is pending consideration for last more than three years, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is directed to decide it within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.