SHRIPAL Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 26th July, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sambhar Lake, Jaipur District dismissed the application of the petitioner -plaintiff filed under Section 13(1) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act.

(2.) ADUMBRATED in brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant -respondent in respect of four parts' shop on the ground of default and bonafide necessity etc. The learned trial court determined the rent of the shop @ Rs. 1100/ - per month, which was challenged by the defendant -respondent, but the appellate court confirmed the order of the trial court. The plaintiff -petitioner is found to have received the bill of electricity from the Electricity Department on 20th June, 2003. Having perused the bill, it was revealed that the bill was related to the electricity consumption in the rented shop. The petitioner -plaintiff filed an application before the trial court imploring that the tenant may be directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 5027/ - relating to the electricity bill, but the trial court dismissed the application. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) AT the very outset, it is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked only when the order of the trial court is found to be perverse, contrary to material, or it results in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the High court should escape from interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial court and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked sparingly.