VIMLA VERMA Vs. SUNIL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity of the orders dtd. 25/9/2018 (Annex.9) and 28/5/2022 (Annex.10) passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur respectively, whereby objections filed by the petitioner were rejected.

(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the first respondent/decree holder filed an eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking eviction of the second respondent (since deceased), who is now represented through his legal heirs, for the suit premises. In the said suit, in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the parties to the Eviction Petition No.247/2011 entered into a compromise and based on the compromise, eviction decree came to be passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on 16/12/2011 (Annex.1). After passing of the judgment dtd. 16/12/2011 (Annex.1), the petitioner preferred her objections on 22/3/2012 viz. that in fact the second respondent (late Sh. Harsukhlal @ Hasmukh) was her tenant, who was paying the rent of the suit premises. In the objections, the petitioner further alleged that she alongwith her family was residing in the suit premises and there were tenants also. The petitioner further alleged in the objection that the suit premises was let out by her being the owner of the premises to tenant/second respondent, however, the tenant in connivance with first respondent obtained a consent decree and thereby obtained eviction certificate. It was further alleged in the objections that on 12/3/2012 the second respondent handed her over the keys of the premises and on coming to know about the said fact, the first respondent assaulted and abused her family members. The petitioner thereafter gave a report of the said incident at Police Station Ratanada, wherein the first respondent was restrained and he threatened them to take possession of the entire premises. In the objections filed, the petitioner further alleged that appropriate proceedings are being undertaken in the competent court for possession of the entire premises. It was further stated that since vacant possession was with her, therefore, proceedings could not be undertaken in execution. Thus, by filing objections, the petitioner prayed that since the eviction decree was obtained fraudulently, therefore, execution proceedings be stayed and possession certificate may not be issued.

(3.) On behalf of first respondent, reply to objections was filed while denying the facts averred in the objections it was inter-alia alleged that Harsukhlal was the tenant of the first respondent and he was receiving the rent of the suit premises and the premises was let out by him only. It was further alleged that the objector/petitioner was residing in a portion of the suit premises as licencee, which licence was revoked by the first respondent/decree holder. It was further alleged that Smt. Chuunibai was the owner of the suit premises, and who through her power of attorney sold the suit premises to the decree holder and his brother Anil Verma and the possession was handed over to them only and thus he and his brother were the owner of the suit premises. It was further alleged that the objector being his great aunt was permitted to reside in a portion of the premises, however, she developed ill-will and pursuant thereto, she filed objections in connivance with tenant, Harsukhlal. It was further stated in the reply that the first respondent is the owner of the suit and on account of obtaining electricity connection in the name of objector, she could not be treated as owner of the suit premises, as she was in permissive possession of the suit premises and the objector had not submitted any title document of the suit premises of her having ownership qua the suit premises. It was further alleged that the suit premises was let out by him to Harsukhlal and on account of default in payment of the rent, the eviction petition was filed, wherein on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, the eviction decree was passed. However, even after passing of agreed decree, with a view not to hand over the vacant possession pursuant to eviction decree to the first respondent, the tenant and petitioner filed objections. Tenant Harsukhlal had not handed over the possession to anyone and he was residing in the suit premises and the plea of handing over possession to petitioner was simply an eyewash. It was thus prayed that the Harsukhlal (tenant) was in possession in the capacity of tenant and the Rent Tribunal passed eviction decree on the basis of compromise arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, and thus the first respondent was entitled to have possession of the suit premises and the objections have been filed with a view to stall the execution proceedings.