NIRMALA WADHWA Vs. SETH SARNAMAL AGGARWAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

(2.) The facts, insofar as necessary for determination of the present controversy, are that the petitioners claim to have purchased the property in question through two duly executed agreement to sell, executed by the respondents. The first agreement to sell was dtd. 24/4/2004 (Annexure P/1) and the second agreement to sell was dtd. 22/9/2010 (Annexure P/8), pertaining to two separate portions of premises commonly known as "Hariyana Bhawan", situated at Plot No. 3 (Flour Mill), Industrial Area, Block, Sri Ganganagar. As per the agreement to sell dtd. 24/4/2004, the petitioners claim to have paid the total amount of Rs.21,00,000.00 in parts, and their possession of the property, which began as tenancy on 14/1/2004, was acknowledged in the agreement itself. With respect to the subsequent agreement dtd. 22/9/2010, the petitioners claim to have paid the full consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 in cash, upon which possession of the relevant portion was delivered to them, with an understanding interse that the formal sale deed would be executed within eight years. When the respondents, notwithstanding the petitioners' presence before the Sub-Registrar on 30/4/2019, failed to execute the requisite sale deeds, the petitioners instituted two Civil Suits bearing suit No. 18/2019 and 19/2019 before the Additional District Judge No.02, Sri Ganganagar, seeking specific performance of the aforesaid agreements, wherein interim orders of status quo came to be passed. During pendency of the said suits, the respondents filed the Rent Petition No. 62/2019 under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") before the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred as "learned Tribunal"), seeking eviction of the petitioners from the property in question. Upon which, the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "CPC") seeking stay of the rent proceedings on the ground that the issues involved were directly and substantially in issue in the pending civil suits. However, the learned Tribunal, by order impugned dtd. 24/3/2022, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dtd. 24/3/2022, rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC, is perverse and unsustainable on the premise that two previously instituted civil suits for specific performance concerning the very same property and between the same parties are already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, wherein interim protection has also been granted. It was further urged that despite being aware of the said pendency, the respondents have deliberately filed a subsequent rent petition by suppressing material facts and taking entirely contradictory stands regarding title, tenancy, and sale agreements. Learned Counsel further submitted that the issues relating to title, validity of sale agreements, and their possession as purchasers are directly and substantially in issue before the Civil Court, and continuation of parallel rent proceedings would result in conflicting findings and abuse of process of law. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the mandate of Sec. 10 CPC and the inherent powers under Sec. 151 CPC, and passed the impugned order in a cursory manner without recording any finding on the specific pleas raised by the petitioners. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside, and the rent proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal may be stayed.