[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Vimal Chand Surana S/O Late Seth Shri … vs Omprakash Agarwal S/O Late Shri Gopal … on 14 July, 2025
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
[2025:RJ-JP:26096]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.884/2024
Vimal Chand Surana S/o Late Seth Shri Rajmal Surana, Aged
About 82 Years, R/o Lal Katla, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Omprakash Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o 94, Shyam Path, Nemisgar Colony,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Govind Sharan Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o 94, Shyam Path, Nemisgar Colony,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Deceased During Appeal)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with
Mr. Avi Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Palak Saraswat for
Mr. Sarvesh Saraswat
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
14/07/2025
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to
the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Appellate
Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (hereinafter referred to as
“the Appellate Tribunal”) by which the order dated 07.12.2019
passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has been quashed and set-
aside and the matter has been remitted for its fresh disposal for
deciding the issue that whether the Rent Eviction Application filed
by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was maintainable or
not in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 11:58:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26096] (2 of 5) [CW-884/2024]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent
Eviction Application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was
submitted against the respondents with the averment that the
subject shop was let out to the father of the respondents and after
the death of the respondents’ father, they were not carrying out
the business in the said premises, hence, they became
encroachers upon the same. Learned counsel submits that the
landlord-tenant relationship was not disputed by the respondents
before the Rent Tribunal rather the respondents came with a case
that after the death of their father, they are carrying out business
in the subject shop. Learned counsel submits that after
considering these facts and averments available on record, the
Rent Tribunal held that there exists a relationship of landlord and
tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and,
thereafter, the application filed by the petitioner on the ground of
bonafide need was allowed, which was assailed by the
respondents by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate
Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during
pendency of the said appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, an
application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted by the
respondents for framing of additional issues, including the issue of
relationship of landlord and tenant and maintainability of the
application filed by the petitioner in view of Section 18 of the Act
of 2001. Learned counsel submits that the said application
submitted by the respondents was rejected by the Appellate
Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2023 and the additional issues
were not framed. Learned counsel submits that now going
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 11:58:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26096] (3 of 5) [CW-884/2024]
contrary to the order dated 16.12.2023, the Appellate Tribunal has
remitted the matter to the Rent Tribunal vide impugned order
dated 06.01.2024 to decide the issue whether the application
submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was
maintainable or not in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001.
Learned counsel submits that once this fact has been established
on record that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties, the question of jurisdiction of Tribunal will
not come into play, hence, the order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that this was the precise case of the petitioner and no
one but the petitioner himself disputed the relationship of landlord
and tenant, the petitioner never accepted the respondents as their
tenants in the application. Learned counsel submits that, under
such circumstances, an objection was taken by the respondents
that in light of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the
Act of 2001, the Tribunal was not having jurisdiction to entertain
the application submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel
submits that this fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal while
passing the eviction order dated 07.12.2019, hence, under these
circumstances, the appeal was preferred before the Appellate
Tribunal and during pendency of the said appeal, an application
under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted for framing of
additional issues, including the issue of jurisdiction. Learned
counsel submits that though the said application was rejected, but
now the Appellate Tribunal has realised the fact that the issue of
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 11:58:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26096] (4 of 5) [CW-884/2024]
jurisdiction is required to be decided afresh by the Rent Tribunal,
hence, the order of remand has been passed, which requires no
interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be
rejected.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
6. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the case of the
petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, the subject shop was let out to
the father of the respondents and after the death of the
respondents’ father, they were not carrying out the business
activities in the shop premises.
7. After considering the pleadings and the evidence of both the
sides, the Rent Tribunal recorded the finding that there exists a
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the
respondents have admitted this fact in their evidence as well as in
the reply that after the death of their father they continued the
business in the subject premises and after considering all these
material aspects, the order of eviction was passed by the Rent
Tribunal.
8. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal
has been preferred by the respondents and during pendency of
the said appeal, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was
submitted for framing of additional issues, including the issue of
jurisdiction of the Tribunal. After hearing the arguments of both
the sides, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the said application
vide order dated 16.12.2023. It is worthy to note here that the
aforesaid order was never assailed by the respondents before any
forum of law, hence, the same has attained finality.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 11:58:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26096] (5 of 5) [CW-884/2024]
9. Now again, the similar request was made by the respondents
before the Appellate Tribunal that the Rent Tribunal did not have
jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner
under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. The issue of jurisdiction has
not only been decided by the Rent Tribunal but also by the
Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 16.12.2023. There was no
reason or occasion available with the Appellate Tribunal to retreat
the same.
10. Instead of remitting the matter to the Tribunal on the ground
of jurisdiction, it was expected from the Appellate Tribunal to
decide the appeal on its merits.
11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned
order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal stands
quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate
Tribunal for disposal of the appeal submitted by the respondents
on its merits.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well
as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.
13. It is expected from the Appellate Tribunal to decide the
appeal expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Karan/38
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 11:58:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link