RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. SURESH KUMAR LEELA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To oppose this petition for writ and any interim direction thereon in favour of the petitioner a caveat is lodged by Shri Deelip Kawadia Advocate on behalf of respondent Suresh Kumar. A copy of the writ petition has already been supplied to learned counsel for the caveator.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondent landlord Suresh Kumar preferred an application as per provisions of Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001") before the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar. The application was founded on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide necessity of the rented premises for personal use. The issue framed by the trial court with regard to bonafide necessity of the rented premises was not pressed by the landlord, thus, the same was decided against him. As a matter of fact the applicant landlord pressed the issues with regard to default in payment of rent and ancillary issue with regard to revision of rent. Learned Tribunal by its judgment dated 15.4.2006 accepted the application and also issued a certificate for eviction from the rented premises. The appeal giving challenge to the judgment and certificate dated 15.4.2006 also came to be rejected by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 10.4.2012. To challenge the orders aforesaid this petition for writ is preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced several contentions to question correctness of the orders passed by the Tribunal, however, at the threshold a preliminary objection is raised by counsel for the respondent landlord with regard to delay in filing the petition for writ. It is submitted that the Rent Tribunal rejected the appeal on 10.4.2012 and on the same day a certificate for eviction too was issued. The copy of the judgment and certificate was obtained by the petitioner in the month of April, 2012 itself, but for no just and valid reason the writ petition is filed after a lapse of more than a year. The writ petition was presented before this Court by the petitioner on 24.5.2013.