PURSHOTTAM Vs. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First of these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar dated 2/11/2012 and Rent Tribunal dated 18/5/2011 by which, both the Tribunals concurrently allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioners-tenant from the suit premises on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. Admittedly, petitioners have been evicted from the suit premises and possession of suit premises has been handed over to the respondent-landlord pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal and affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Petitioners have filed second of these writ petitions seeking a direction for restoration of possession to them on the ground that as per sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, the "Act of 2001"), judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought not to have been executed for a period of three months from the date of judgment and the petitioners ought not to have been evicted pursuant to the execution of aforesaid judgment.

(2.) Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel referring to sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 15 of the Act of 2001 has argued that by virtue of doctrine of merger, word "decision" used in sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 15 should be construed to mean final decision by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and therefore the restriction on execution of the judgment of eviction should extend even to the judgment rendered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of this Court in Zaffar Hussain & Ors. vs. Gurcharan Lal Bhatia & Ors., 1996 1 RajLW 525. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that Nazir could not have on his own re-questioned the police help to seek eviction of the petitioners from the shop in their absence. Locks of the shops were broken open with the police help in absence of petitioners and goods/belongings of the petitioners lying there have not been returned to the petitioners.

(3.) In so far as merits of the case is concerned, Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal have concurrently decided the issue against petitioners-tenant upholding entitlement of the respondent-landlord to seek eviction of the petitioners on the ground of their personal bonafide necessity.