HEMLATA BAXI Vs. KUSUM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 12/5/2016 passed by Presiding Officer, Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No. 119/2015 titled as Hemlata Baxi vs. Kusum Gupta, whereby the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal upheld the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in the Original Petition No. 61/2010 vide order dtd. 3/8/2015 and allowed the eviction petition filed under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in favour of the present respondent.

(2.) The relevant facts, necessary for the just and efficacious disposal of the instant matter, are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in Baby vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors.: (1998) 8 SCC 310; Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.: (2003) 6 SCC 675 and State of Kerala and Ors. vs. K. Sarojini Amma and Ors.: (2003) 8 SCC 526 and has submitted that in spite of concurrent findings, as arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal and the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Court. It was argued that despite the unavailability of the revisional jurisdiction with the High Court, it still had the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders passed by the Tribunals if the findings of fact had been arrived at by non-consideration of the relevant and material documents, the consideration of which could have led to an opposite conclusion. Learned counsel further submitted that in the factual matrix of the instant matter, the parties entered into a compromise/rajinama vide compromise deed dtd. 22/5/2009, after duly taking into consideration the balance of convenience for both the sides and the necessity so arisen for the respondent. However, despite the said compromise and upon the same facts and circumstances, the respondent filed a fresh eviction suit (marked as 'Annexure-3') within a span of one year. Therefore, the filing of the subsequent suit is dehors of the compromise deed dtd. 22/5/2009 and in sheer violation of the principles of res judicata. Hence, the respondent was barred from filing the subsequent suit under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.