AMRITLAL Vs. RENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Amritlal S/o. Kanhaiyalal, has filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the eviction decree dated 17.11.2007 (Annex. 8), which decree was passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sirohi, upon a compromise between the parties on 17.11.2007. The said compromise was duly signed by the parties represented by their advocate Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia, on which the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the eviction decree. The petitioner has approached this Court saying that he did not sign the said compromise, whereas he was running the business of cutlery in the shop in question situated at Main Bazar, Kumhar Panch Maili Nyat, Sirohi. Initially the shop in question was given on rent on 01.04.1951 to one Narayan Lal, who was the grandfather of the petitioner for running a tea shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/landlord submitted that the compromise was duly signed by the father of the present petitioner, Amritlal, namely, Sh. Kanhaiyalal, who inherited such tenancy from his father, namely, Narayan Lal (Grandfather of the petitioner and the original tenant). He further submitted that the other legal representatives of original tenant, Narayan Lal, had also signed the said compromise and even the advocate Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia, representing all the parties, including the present petitioner, Amritlal also put his signatures in the said compromise on behalf of all the legal representatives of Narayan Lal. He further submits that even if it is assumed for arguments' sake that the petitioner, Amritlal has not signed the compromise application in Original Eviction Case No. 2/04, the present writ petition cannot be entertained in supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India in view of recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 AIR(SCW) 6387 has held as under:-