SAJJAN KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The intra Court appeal has been preferred as against the order of the single Bench dated 22-2-2011 dismissing writ application No. 14833/2010, which was preferred against the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 23-10-2010 whereby appeal of the appellants was dis-missed and the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 20-4-2010 rejecting application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 101 read with Sec-tion 151, CPC and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, was af-firmed.

(2.) Facts in short are that on 26-4-1984, late Chaturbhuj Agrawal, father of appel-lants, had taken shop in question on rent situ-ated at M.I. Road, Jaipur from late Smt. Hajara Bai for business purposes. Thereaf-ter, legal heirs and successors of late Smt. Hajara Bai sold the shop in question to Smt. Aanchi Devi vide registered sale deed dated 25-1-2003 and since then, she became owner of the shop in question and thus, rent for the month of February, 2003 to the tune of Rs. 651/- was sent by the tenant-Mahendra Kumar Agrawal to landlord Smt. Aanchi Devi through cheque. However, the said cheque eas dishonoured. Thereafter, notices were sent for payment of rent, but despite that, rent was not paid and thus, tenant has committed default in payment of rent for the period from 1-2-2003 to 31-5-2004 and on that ground, a petition for eviction was filed by landlord-Smt. Aanchi Devi against ten-ant-Mahendra Kumar Agrawal on 2-6-2004 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment and decree dated 11-4-2007 allowed the petition and ordered for eviction of tenant-Mahendra Kumar Agrawal from the shop in question on the ground of committing default in making payment of rent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Rent Tribunal, appeal was preferred before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 16-2-2010.

(3.) Thereafter, when the possession of the shop in question was not handed over by the tenant-Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, execution petition was filed. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 101 read with Section 151, CPC and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinaf-ter referred to as "the Act of 2001") was filed by the appellants raising objections that they were also co-tenants along with Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, but they were not made party to the eviction petition and therefore, order of eviction was not executable against them. A reply to that application was filed on behalf of the landlord-Smt. Aanchi Devi stating therein that after death of Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Mahendra Kumar Agrawal became the sole tenant as he was carrying on busi-ness in the shop in question. Apart from this, Mahendra Kumar Agrawal has also filed a civil suit against one Ayub Khan in which he has categorically stated that he was the sole tenant being proprietor of the business run in the shop in question. Even the cheque for payment of rent for the month of Feb. 2003 was also issued by Mahendra Kumar Agrawal. The Rent Tribunal vide order dated 20-4-2010 rejected the application of the ap-pellants. Aggrieved thereby, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of Appel-late Rent Tribunal, writ application was pre-ferred and the same was also dismissed by the single Bench. Hence, the intra-Court ap-peal has been preferred.