Line Kenal Link Road, Bajrang Nagar, Kota v. Jagdish Prasad Shringi Son Of Late

Judgment

1. Jagdish Prasad Shringi Son Of Late Shri Damodar Lal Ji, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of House No. 28/124, Pushpa Market, Gumanpura, Kota.

Chitra Hiranandani Wife Of Late Shri Jugal Kishor, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of House No. 45-A, Near Niharika Restaurant, Gulab Bagh, Police Line Kenal Link Road, Bajrang Nagar, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil K. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Manan Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota has been partly allowed and a conditional order has been passed, wherein the petitioner has been ordered to pay the due rent, and only after paying the same, her name be deleted from the execution proceedings (2 of 5) [CW-11659/2025] and name of Chitra Hiranandani be substituted in place of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was the tenant in the rented premised taken by him from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) against the petitioner’s deceased father before the Rent Tribunal, which was allowed by the Rent Tribunal on the basis of the compromise arrived between the parties vide order dated 18.12.2017 and it was agreed between the parties that rented premises would be vacated by the petitioner’s deceased father on or before

31.01.2024. Counsel submits that father of the petitioner passed away on 04.09.2023 and thereafter, the mother of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.2-Chitra Hiranandani remained in occupancy of the rented premises and paid rent to the respondent No.1. Counsel submits now the respondent No.1 has submitted execution application against the petitioner without impleading the mother of the petitioner/wife of the deceased-tenant, whereas an application was submitted by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading her mother, Chitra Hiranandani for impleading her as party in the execution proceedings. Counsel submits that the said application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025, against which an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. Counsel submits that the said appeal has been allowed directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and on satisfaction of this (3 of 5) [CW-11659/2025] condition, the petitioner’s name has been ordered to be deleted from the execution proceedings and the name of her mother was ordered to be substituted in place of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the above condition imposed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable, as the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the rental premises after her marriage. It is only the wife of the deceased-tenant, who is liable to pay the arrears of rent, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that rent was not paid by the persons who were in occupation of the rental premises. Counsel submits that an execution application was submitted impleading the petitioner as party in the said proceedings. Counsel submits that during pendency of the said application, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Chitra Hiranandani i.e. mother of the petitioner and wife of the deceased-tenant, as party in the execution application. The said application was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2025. Counsel submits that the said order not only assailed by the petitioner, but also by the wife of the deceased i.e. mother of the petitioner in a consolidated appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Counsel submits that the Appellate Tribunal has passed the order impugned with the condition directing the petitioner to pay the entire dues and if she complies with the order, her name be deleted from the array of execution proceedings. Counsel (4 of 5) [CW-11659/2025] submits that the said order was passed on a joint appeal submitted by the petitioner and Chitra Hiranandani and no appeal has been preferred by Chitra Hiranandani, hence, this petition is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Counsel further submits that an incorrect statement has been made by the petitioner before this Court that no amount has been paid by her, rather the bank statement of the respondent No.1 indicates that the petitioner has deposited some part of the arrears of the rent on 29.09.2023, hence the petitioner is bound to comply with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

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

5. Considering the arguments put forward by the rival sides and looking to the fact that the petitioner as well as her mother are the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and looking to the fact that the petitioner has also deposited certain amount of arrears of rent in the bank account of the respondent No.1, the petitioner is also supposed to deposit some part of the due arrears of rent, as directed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

6. Perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal indicates that a conditional order has been passed directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent before the Executing Court and in case, she complies with the aforesaid order, her name would be deleted from the execution proceedings and name of her mother would be substituted. The bank statements available on the record indicates that (5 of 5) [CW-11659/2025] rent has been paid on some occasions by the petitioner and on some occasions by her mother, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal stands modified.

7. The petitioner is directed to pay half of the arrears of the rent with the Executing Court within a period of three months form the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and rest of the arrears of the rent would be deposited by her mother.

8. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the order passed by this Court, the Executing Court would be at liberty to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with law.

9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/165