GAVER CHAND Vs. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order being similar.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10/10/2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner as well as the judgment and order dated 27/11/2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide which the appeal against the order of the Rent Tribunal was dismissed.

(3.) The respondent No.2 Shri Gopal Bhanot filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for his eviction from the disputed premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and for causing material alteration to the disputed premises. The Rent Tribunal, Bikaner vide judgment dated 10/10/2012 decided the rent petition against the petitioner-tenant holding him defaulter in payment of due rent and directed him to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent No.2 but the issue relating to material alteration was decided against the landlord and in favour of the petitioner-tenant. The appeal against the order and judgment of the Rent Tribunal was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide order and judgment dated 27/11/2013. While praying for setting aside the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal wrongly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the basis of the claim of time barred rent amount. Secondly, the petitioner did not commit any default as there was no detail of the amount of rent liable to be paid by the petitioner in the notice issued to the petitioner. He had duly deposited the rent @ Rs. 626/- per month immediately on the receipt of the said notice. The only thing that has been held against the petitioner is that the rent deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the notice still fell short by Rs. 2424/-. In case, the petitioner is held not liable for the payment of the period prior to July, 2005 being time barred, there will be no outstanding amount against the petitioner. Lastly, the landlord was not able to prove that the petitioner has been continuously in default in payment for more than four months. Failure to prove so should have resulted in dismissal of the rent petition. Heard.