MANGI LAL Vs. FATEH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand vide which the judgment and order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand was set aside and the petitioner from the premises in question was ordered to be evicted is challenged.

(2.) Vide order dated 01.09.2005, the Original Application of the respondent-landlord was ordered to be dismissed in default by the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand. Instead of filing an application for recalling of the order dated 01.09.2005, the respondent-landlord filed a fresh Original Application before the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand. The Rent Tribunal, however, dismissed the new Original Application vide its order dated 30.07.2008. The respondent-landlord filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the Rent Tribunal dated 30.07.2008 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal along with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed the application of the respondents-landlord filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and directed the Rent Tribunal to inquire about the allegations of sub-letting. This time too, the Rent Tribunal rejected the Original Amended Application and the matter was submitted before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 directed the eviction of the petitionertenant from the premises in question.

(3.) While praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold grounds. Firstly, the respondents having failed to file any application for restoration of the Original Application which was dismissed in default on 01.09.2005, a fresh Original Application on the same cause of action was not maintainable in view of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, the petitioner is doing his business in the shop in question and has no other place to do his business, whereas, the respondent No. 1 is already holding another shop just adjacent to the shop in question and there is a passage available to him through that shop.