LAWS(RAJ)-2016-11-126

BANA RAM S/O SHRI GURNAMAL SINDHI LOHANA Vs. MOHAN LAL S/O SHRI KESHARI MAL JAIN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE PRAVEEN S/O SHRI MOHAN LAL JAIN, MAL GODAM ROAD, BARMER

Decided On November 04, 2016
Bana Ram S/O Shri Gurnamal Sindhi Lohana Appellant
V/S
Mohan Lal S/O Shri Keshari Mal Jain Since Deceased Through Legal Representative Praveen S/O Shri Mohan Lal Jain, Mal Godam Road, Barmer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner tenant before the learned Rent Tribunal, has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 21.07.2016 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Barmer allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent landlord and directing eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises.

(2.) Shri R.K. Thanvi, learned Sr. Counsel submits that though the findings of the courts below have been challenged on various grounds, however, at this stage, and reserving the petitioner's right to challenge all such findings at a later stage, he urges that the impugned appellate tribunal's judgment liable to be set aside for the solitary reason that during the pendency of appeal, an application (Annexure-7) had been preferred by the petitioner tenant under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act and the appellate court, while considering such application by its order dated 10.12.2015, directed that the application shall be decided with the appeal. The appellate court, vide its judgment dated 21.07.2016, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, however, the above mentioned application preferred by the petitioner, was left undecided. Thus, relying on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Prem Chand and Ors. v. Ghisi Bai and Ors, reported in 2012(1) RLW 220 (Raj.) , Shri Thanvi contends that the judgment of the appellate court is bad in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration and disposal of the appeal as well as the application of the petitioner as per law.

(3.) Shri Sharad Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondents is not in a position to controvert the fact that the appellate court did not decide the petitioner's application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act while deciding the appeal.