SHIVLAL Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 8/9/2020 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal") in Civil Regular Appeal No.23/2020 (CIS No.04/2020) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Land Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"), has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the original application filed by the respondent No.1/landlord (for brevity "the landlord") under Sec. 9 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity as also material alteration, came to be allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu vide final order dtd. 17/2/2020 whereagainst, the tenant filed an appeal which is pending consideration in the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therein, the tenant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Sec. 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking appointment of the Site Commissioner which has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order dtd. 8/9/2020, impugned herein.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the tenant would submit that the landlord has concealed the fact that he also has eight other shops under his possession. He further submits that while dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not consider that the material alteration alleged to be carried out by him, was of temporary nature and for adjudicating upon this issue, appointment of the Site Commissioner was imperative. Inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act of 2001, he submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to take evidence even at the appellate stage. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dtd. 8/9/2020 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord opposed the prayer.