JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this special appeal, the petitioner-appellant-tenant seeks to question the order dated 26.02.2010 passed in CWP No. 1989/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed in limine the writ petition preferred against the order dated 17.02.2010 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh ('the Tribunal') in Execution Case No. 1/2010. By the said order dated 17.02.2010, the Tribunal proceeded to reject the objections taken by the appellant against execution of the certificate for recovery of possession dated 20.04.2005 that had been issued pursuant to an order passed in terms of the compromise between the parties.

(2.) Briefly put, the relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter are that on 02.06.2004, the respondent-landlord, said to be a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 ('the Act of 1958') filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds referable to Clause (i) and Clause (j) of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') i.e., of the landlord having reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises; and of the tenant having available with him suitable other premises. On 06.08.2004, the appellant filed a reply contesting the averments taken in the petition for eviction. After filing of the affidavits but before any further proceedings, it was suggested before the Tribunal, on 20.04.2005, that the matter had been compromised and the parties, present-in-person with their respective Counsel, presented a deed of compromise (Annex.3) carrying the stipulations that the appellant-tenant shall continue to occupy the premises as tenant until 30.12.2009; that he would make payment of rent @ 800/- per month from the month of January 2005 and @ 1,000/- per month from the month of January 2008; and that he shall deposit an amount of Rs. 75,000/- with the plaintiff-landlord that would remain in deposit without interest but shall be refunded on 30.12.2009 or while seeking execution. On the very day of presentation of the compromise deed, the learned Tribunal proceeded to pass the final order in terms thereof and issued the certificate for recovery of possession (Annex.4) accordingly.

(3.) On 08.12.2009, the plaintiff-landlord moved an application (Annex.5) before the Tribunal stating its willingness to deposit the said amount of Rs. 75,000/-; and sought the necessary orders for recovery of possession of the demised premises. The appellant-tenant came out with the reply-cum-objections to the said application stating, inter alia, that the order in terms of the compromise had been obtained by way of fraud; that enhancement of rent by upward revision amounted to creation of a new tenancy; that per Clause (v) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001, its Chapters II and III were not applicable to the premises in question for the landlord being a body corporate and hence, order for eviction could not have been passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 9 ibid; and that the provisions contained in Section 9 ibid setting out the grounds for eviction of the tenant have an overriding effect and, in the absence of satisfaction of the Tribunal on any of the grounds of eviction, the certificate for recovery of possession was a nullity in the eye of law.