Umashankar V Seth Suganchand

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, December 25, 2023

Printed For: Ranjeet Vishnupant Sangle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 SCC OnLine Raj 479 : (2020) 1 WLC (UC) 602
In the High Court of Rajasthan†

(BEFORE SANGEET LODHA, J.)
Umashankar .…. Petitioner;

v.
Seth Suganchand Chitlangiya Charitable Trust
Through Its President Vikram Kumar
Chitalangiya and Others .…. Respondents.
S.B. Civil Writ No. 15629/2018
Decided on January 2, 2019
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi for Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANGEET LODHA, J.:— This petition is directed against judgment
dated 7.9.18 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar,
affirming the judgment dated 29.5.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal,
Sriganganagar, allowing the petition preferred by the respondent-
landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises.
2. The facts relevant are that the respondent-Seth Suganchand
Chitlangiya Charitable Trust (‘the Trust’) was exempted from
applicability of the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent &
Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short “the Act of 1950”) by the State
Government vide notification dated 6.3.97. The respondent-Trust filed a
suit being No. 59/05, for possession and mesne profit against the
petitioner before the District Judge, Sriganganagar, which was later
transferred for trial to Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar.
The Act of 1950 stood repealed by virtue of provisions of Section 32 of
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”). Keeping
in view the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the suit
preferred by the respondent-Trust as aforesaid, was dismissed by the
learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.09 for want of
jurisdiction. The State Government issued yet another notification
dated 23.6.09 whereby the respondent-Trust was exempted from
applicability of the provisions contained in Chapter II and III of the Act
of 2001. The respondent-Trust preferred yet another suit being No.
151/09 before the District Judge, Sriganganagar for eviction of the
petitioner-tenant from the suit premises. The petitioner-tenant
preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection
of the plaint on the ground that by virtue of provisions of Section 18 of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Act of 2001, the suit preferred by the respondent-Trust before the
civil Court is not maintainable. The application was rejected by the
District Judge, Sriganganagar vide order dated 27.1.11. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition being No. 35/11
before this Court. The revision petition was allowed by this court vide
order dated 26.8.11 holding that the suit preferred by the respondent-
Trust before the civil court was not maintainable and accordingly, the
suit was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the respondent-Trust
was given a liberty to prefer petition seeking eviction before the Rent
Tribunal.
3. After dismissal of the suit as aforesaid, the respondent-Trust
preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 seeking
eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The petition was
allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar vide judgment dated
29.5.14. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner
before the Appellate Rent Tribunal stands dismissed by the impugned
judgment Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the
respondent-Trust did not serve a notice to the petitioner under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and therefore, the petition
preferred was liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Learned
counsel submitted that the notifications dated 14.3.97 and 23.6.09
issued by the State Government granting exemption to the respondent-
Trust from applicability of the provisions of Act of 1950 and the Act of
2001 respectively, are erroneous, however, the contention raised in this
regard has not been taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal.
Learned counsel submitted that the suits earlier preferred by the
respondent-Trust having been dismissed, the fresh petition filed before
the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar was barred by principle of res judicata
and thus, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in affirming
the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on issue no. 4.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the suits earlier filed by the respondent-Trust were
dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the petitioner was given liberty to
approach the Rent Tribunal for the relief claimed and thus, the principle
of res judicata is not attracted in the instant case. Learned counsel
submitted that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by service
of notice dated 3.8.09 and thus, the contention sought to be raised that
before filing the petition, no notice was served upon the petitioner
under Section 106 of the Act of 1882, is contrary to record.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record.
7. Indusputably, the first suit preferred by the respondent-Trust was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Srigangangar vide

judgment dated 8.5.09 for want of jurisdiction keeping in view the
provisions of the Act of 2001. The second suit preferred by the
respondent was also dismissed by this court vide order dated 26.8.11,
while allowing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner assailing
the legality of the order dated 27.11.11 passed by the District Judge,
Srigangangar rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC inasmuch as, by virtue of provisions of Section
18 of the Act of 2001, the suit seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant
preferred by the respondent-Trust before civil court was not
maintainable. Suffice it to say that the suits earlier filed by the
respondent-Trust were dismissed as not maintainable for want of
jurisdiction and thus, the question of the fresh petition filed by the
respondent-Trust under the provisions of the Act of 2001 was in no
manner barred by principle of res judicata. Thus, the Appellate Rent
Tribunal has committed no error in affirming the finding of the Rent
Tribunal on issue no. 4.
8. It is the matter of record that before filing the petition before the
Rent Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction of
the petitioner from the suit premises, the respondent-Trust had served
notice dated 3.8.09 terminating the tenancy in terms of provisions of
Section 106 of the Act of 1882 and thus, the Rent Tribunal has
committed no error in deciding the issue no. 1 in favour of the
respondent-Trust and against the petitioner.
9. Coming to the notifications issued by the State Government
granting exemption to the respondent-Trust from applicability of the
provisions of the Act of 1950 and Act of 2001, suffice it to say that the
legality of the said notifications was never challenged by the petitioner
by availing appropriate remedy at any point of time. The said
notifications are not impugned in the present petition either and thus,
the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner at this stage in the
present petition preferred assailing the judgment passed by the
Appellate Rent Tribunal, cannot be entertained.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition preferred is
absolutely devoid of any merit, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
———
† Principal Bench at Jodhpur
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.

Umashankar V Seth Suganchand

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Umashankar V Seth Suganchand

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Umashankar V Seth Suganchand

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, December 25, 2023

2019 SCC OnLine Raj 479 : (2020) 1 WLC (UC) 602

In the High Court of Rajasthan†

Umashankar .…. Petitioner;

dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Srigangangar vide

You might also like