Jaipur, Rajasthan v. Omprakash Agarwal S/o Late

Judgment

1. Omprakash Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 94, Shyam Path, Nemisgar Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

Govind Sharan Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 94, Shyam Path, Nemisgar Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Deceased During Appeal) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with For Respondent(s) Mr. Avi Sharma : Ms. Palak Saraswat for Mr. Sarvesh Saraswat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/07/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”) by which the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has been quashed and set- aside and the matter has been remitted for its fresh disposal for deciding the issue that whether the Rent Eviction Application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was maintainable or not in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. [2025:RJ-JP:26096] (2 of 5) [CW-884/2024]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Eviction Application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted against the respondents with the averment that the subject shop was let out to the father of the respondents and after the death of the respondents’ father, they were not carrying out the business in the said premises, hence, they became encroachers upon the same. Learned counsel submits that the landlord-tenant relationship was not disputed by the respondents before the Rent Tribunal rather the respondents came with a case that after the death of their father, they are carrying out business in the subject shop. Learned counsel submits that after considering these facts and averments available on record, the Rent Tribunal held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and, thereafter, the application filed by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need was allowed, which was assailed by the respondents by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the said appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted by the respondents for framing of additional issues, including the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submits that the said application submitted by the respondents was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2023 and the additional issues were not framed. Learned counsel submits that now going [2025:RJ-JP:26096] (3 of 5) [CW-884/2024] contrary to the order dated 16.12.2023, the Appellate Tribunal has remitted the matter to the Rent Tribunal vide impugned order dated 06.01.2024 to decide the issue whether the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was maintainable or not in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submits that once this fact has been established on record that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the question of jurisdiction of Tribunal will not come into play, hence, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that this was the precise case of the petitioner and no one but the petitioner himself disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioner never accepted the respondents as their tenants in the application. Learned counsel submits that, under such circumstances, an objection was taken by the respondents that in light of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the Tribunal was not having jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this fact was not appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the eviction order dated 07.12.2019, hence, under these circumstances, the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal and during pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted for framing of additional issues, including the issue of jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that though the said application was rejected, but now the Appellate Tribunal has realised the fact that the issue of [2025:RJ-JP:26096] (4 of 5) [CW-884/2024] jurisdiction is required to be decided afresh by the Rent Tribunal, hence, the order of remand has been passed, which requires no interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the case of the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, the subject shop was let out to the father of the respondents and after the death of the respondents’ father, they were not carrying out the business activities in the shop premises.

7. After considering the pleadings and the evidence of both the sides, the Rent Tribunal recorded the finding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the respondents have admitted this fact in their evidence as well as in the reply that after the death of their father they continued the business in the subject premises and after considering all these material aspects, the order of eviction was passed by the Rent Tribunal.

8. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal has been preferred by the respondents and during pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted for framing of additional issues, including the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the said application vide order dated 16.12.2023. It is worthy to note here that the aforesaid order was never assailed by the respondents before any forum of law, hence, the same has attained finality. [2025:RJ-JP:26096] (5 of 5) [CW-884/2024]

9. Now again, the similar request was made by the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal that the Rent Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. The issue of jurisdiction has not only been decided by the Rent Tribunal but also by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 16.12.2023. There was no reason or occasion available with the Appellate Tribunal to retreat the same.

10. Instead of remitting the matter to the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction, it was expected from the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on its merits.

11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal stands quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal of the appeal submitted by the respondents on its merits.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

13. It is expected from the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Karan/38 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J