Laxmandas v. Babulal S/o

Judgment

1. Babulal S/o Shri Narayanlal Saini, Shopkeeper Mohanbaba Ki Pyaoo, Alwar (Raj.)

2. Bhonrelal Saini S/o Shri Girdharilal Saini, R/o Dhobi Gatta, Rangili Wala Kuan, Alwar (Raj.)

3. Mahatma Mohan Das Seva Samiti, Alwar District, Alwar, Through Its Acting President/sr. President Bhonrelal Saini

S/o Shri Girdharilal Saini, Dhobi Gatta, Rangili Wala Kuan, Alwar (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anshuman Saxena with Mr.Honey Saini and Mr.Lovesh Momnani For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/07/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 15.04.2024, 05.09.2024 and

01.06.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar. By passing the order impugned on 15.04.2024, the respondent Bhonrelal Saini has been substituted as successor of the decree holder Laxmandas. Thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioner for recalling of the aforesaid order, the said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 05.09.2024 and the order [2025:RJ-JP:24759] (2 of 6) [CW-18623/2024] dated 01.06.2024 has been assailed by the petitioner whereby the possession of the premises in question has been handed over to the respondent No.1 by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question belong to Baba Laxmandas and the same was let out to the respondent No.1 Babulal and thereafter, an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) was submitted for his eviction which was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide order dated 17.03.2017 and a direction was issued to the respondent No.1 to hand over the possession of the premises to Baba Laxmandas. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed by the respondent No.1 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, by way of filing an appeal, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 13.07.2022 against which the respondent No.1 preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11517/2022 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 by which the respondent No.1 was directed to vacate the premises on or before 30.06.2024.

3. Counsel submits that Baba Laxmandas who was the decree holder expired on 20.04.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioner became the successor of Baba Laxmandas on the basis of the will executed by him on 10.04.2023 and on the basis of the said will, an application was submitted by him before the Executing Court for his substitution in place of deceased-decree holder Baba Laxmandas. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application was submitted on 01.07.2024, i.e., immediately on the next day, when the respondent No.1 was supposed to vacate the premises in [2025:RJ-JP:24759] (3 of 6) [CW-18623/2024] question. Counsel submits that behind the back of the petitioner, an application for substitution was submitted by the respondent No.2 Bhonrelal on 20.03.2024 on the basis of a registration certificate issued by the Department of Cooperative Society by which a Samiti in the name and style of Mahatma Mohandas Seva Samiti, Alwar was registered. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2024 in a cursory manner without recording any cogent reason. Counsel for the petitioner was not aware about passing of the aforesaid order and he came to know about the aforesaid order only, when the possession of the premises was handed over by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 on 01.06.2024. Hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 15.04.2024, but the said application has been rejected vide order dated 05.09.2024.

4. Counsel submits that without holding any enquiry as to who is successor of the decree holder, straightaway the application submitted by the respondent No.2 was allowed and the application submitted by the petitioner was kept pending and the same has not been decided till date. Counsel submits that the respondents are in connivance with each other and in spite of passing of decree of eviction against respondent No.1, the same premises has been handed over to him by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the order impugned passed by the Tribunal are liable to quashed and set-aside. [2025:RJ-JP:24759] (4 of 6) [CW-18623/2024]

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that, the Will, upon which the petitioner is placing reliance, is forged and the validity of the same has been assailed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the competent Court of law and now, the matter is subjudice before the Civil Court. Counsel submits that the Samiti, i.e., Mahatma Mohandas Seva Samiti, Alwar was registered by the Department of Cooperative Society and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being officebearers of the Samiti came in the succession of the decree holder and that is why the application for substitution was submitted and the same was rightly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2024. Counsel submits that the aforesaid Samiti was constituted on 16.12.2012 and the same was registered on 07.11.2023, hence, the respondent No.1 being the Officebearer of the Samiti came in the succession of the decree holder and that is why, the application for substitution was submitted. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

6. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the rent eviction proceedings before the Tribunal, Rent Appellate Tribunal and before this Court, this fact was never brought into the notice of all the three Courts that the premises belong to the Samiti or any Samiti was constituted in the year

2012. Counsel submits that it is only after death of the decree holder, the entire exercise was done to grab the properties of the decree holder.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:24759] (5 of 6) [CW-18623/2024]

8. The facts with regard to letting out the premises to the respondent No.1 are not disputed, the fact with regard to eviction order being passed against him by the Tribunal, the Rent Appellate Tribunal and by this Court are also not disputed. This fact is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was supposed to vacate the premises on or before 30.06.2024. The disputed facts before the Tribunal and before this Court are as to who is the real successor of the decree holder Baba Laxmandas who filed the rent eviction proceedings against the respondent No.1. The petitioner is claiming himself as successor of the decree holder on the basis of a Will and on the contrary, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are claiming themselves as successor of Baba Laxmandas on the basis of a registration certificate and on the basis of certain documents, ie., Registration Certificate issued by the Department of Cooperative Society in the name of Mahatma Mohandas Seva Samiti, Alwar.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, these are the disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter is required to be decided by the Tribunal. Hence, the order dated 15.04.2024 and the successive order dated 05.09.2024 stand quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to hold an enquiry and decide who is the real successor of the decree holder and pass appropriate orders. The Tribunal is directed to conduct the enquiry and conclude the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. [2025:RJ-JP:24759] (6 of 6) [CW-18623/2024]

10. The handing over of possession of the premises to the respondent No.1 would subject to outcome of the enquiry.

11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /2 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J