SURAJEET SINGH BORAN Vs. YASEEN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dtd. 16/3/2013 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar (for brevity, "learned Appellate Rent Tribunal") in rent appeal No.37/2009 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant (for short, "tenant") against the final order dtd. 12/4/2007 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar (for short, "the learned Rent Tribunal"), allowing an application filed by the respondent No.1/applicant/landlord (for short, "landlord") under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, "the Act of 2001"), has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an application under Ss. 6 and 9 of the Act of 2001 against the tenant in the learned Rent Tribunal. Vide its order dtd. 21/3/2006, learned Rent Tribunal passed an order qua prayer of the landlord for revision of the rent under Sec. 6 of the Act of 2001 whereupon, the landlord filed an application under Sec. 21(3)(c) for reviewing the order dtd. 21/3/2006. Despite service, tenant did not put in appearance. Realizing the error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as despite the application being under Sec. 9 as well along with Sec. 6, no order was passed qua Sec. 9, the learned Rent Tribunal reviewed its earlier order and vide order dtd. 12/4/2007, also allowed the application filed by landlord under Sec. 9. The tenant preferred an appeal against the final order dtd. 12/4/2007 along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide judgment impugned dtd. 16/3/2013, dismissed the application filed by the tenant under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequently, the appeal.

(3.) Assailing the judgment dtd. 16/3/2013, learned counsel for the tenant submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal did not appreciate that on receipt of the notice of execution filed by the landlord pursuant to final order 12/4/2007, he met him whereupon, the landlord assured him to enter into a compromise. He further stated that the tenant also engaged a counsel as suggested by the landlord himself who also kept on assuring the tenant to do the needful but, failed to do so resulting into the delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment impugned dtd. 16/3/2013 be quashed and set aside and the rent appeal be restored to its original number for decision on merit.