NARAINI METALS INDUSTRIES Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner M/s. Naraini Metals Industries challenging the order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, and order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, with prayer that the same be set aside and the original application filed by the landlord-respondent for eviction of the tenant-petitioner be dismissed.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that the disputed premises were let out to the tenant-petitioner by late Shri Mathura Das Kotewala, the predecessor in title of the landlord-respondent. He, during his lifetime, filed a suit for eviction against the tenant-petitioner, which was dismissed on 30.06.1978. He thereafter filed another suit in the year 1982, which too was dismissed in default as well as for want of prosecution, because in the meantime another petition for eviction of the tenant-petitioner was filed by respondent Ajay Kumar, the grandson of Seth Mathura Das, under Sections 9 and 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001. He also filed another application under Sections 6 and 14 of the Rent Control Act for determination of rent, and both the applications were consolidated vide order dated 23.09.2010. Issue No. 5 framed in the said application was to the effect whether in the respect of the suit premise there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? Issue No. 6 was to the effect whether the application filed under the new Act is maintainable while pendency of the suit under the repealed Act, by the landlord? Issue No. 7 was to the effect whether the will executed by late Shri Mathura Das in favour of grandson Ajay Kumar is a forged document executed with oblique motive to get rid of tenant.

(3.) It would be pertinent to mention here that Ajay Kumar on the basis of will dated 10.07.2000 executed in his favour by Seth Mathura Das, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, for his impleadment as plaintiff in the suit for eviction filed by original landlord Mathura Das. The application was allowed by order dated 23.07.2005. Tenant-petitioner M/s. Naraini Metals Industries challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No. 8317/2006. This court, vide order dated 13.04.2007, disposed of the writ petition on the premise that regardless of the fact that as to who is substituted as a landlord or the plaintiff, the status of the petitioner would always continue to be that of the tenant. However, opportunity was given to the tenant-petitioner to raise the objections before the Rent Tribunal. The said suit was later not prosecuted by the landlord and was dismissed in default.