Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj192
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Two ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judge's duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretation semper fienda est, ut euitetur absurdum el inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as 'the New Act' in toto and Section 32(3)(a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as 'the Old Act', have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.The relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj819; 2003(4)WLC790
Goyal, J.1. Following common question of law arises in these four appeals:-'Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?'2. Civil First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj24; 1988(2)WLN197
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This second appeal filed by the defendant Gopal Krishan Singhal, arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the respondent, Ram Lal Goyal, against the appellant, in respect of the property bearing No. AMC 32/123B(Old), now renumbered as 24/134 (new) situated in Kaiserganj, Ajmer. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the said property was let out to him by Shri N. N. Tondon on a monthly rent of Rs. 27/-. Shri N. N. Tondon had filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 229/64) for eviction against the plaintiff-respondent and in the said suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Munsiff Ajmer City, Ajmer on 20th August, 1965. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was further that the appellant was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant on two grounds, namely, (i) that the appellant had not paid the rent for the premises from 1st July, 1966 to 31st May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1992Raj75; 1991(2)WLN237
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a revsion petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, rejecting the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff non petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 31-7-1984 for eviction against the defendant non petitioner No. 2 on several grounds including sub-letting the disputed shop to the petitioner. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been stated as under: --^^mDr nqdku tksM+krHkh ls izfroknh us fcyk btktr oknh] fdlh eqds'k y?kq m|kksx fg.Mksu izksikbZVjlrh'k pUn tSu dks lcySV dj fn;k gS**3. The suit was contested by the defendant and in reply of para 4 of the plaint, it has been submitted as under:--^^izfroknh fnukad 31&3&81rd dk fdjk;k oknh dks ;Fkk le; vnk dj pqdk gS A blds ckn fnukad 1&4&81ls oknh us mDr tksM+k nqdku eqrnkfo'k esllZ eqds'k y?kq m|ksx fg.MksuizksizkbZVj lrh'k pUn iq= uRFkh yky tkfr tSu fuoklh fg.Mksu dks 200@&:i;kekgokj fdjk;s ij ns nh rFkk oknh fnukad 1&4&81 ls mDr eqds'k y?...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN199
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-landlords from the appellate judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer who upheld the decree against the original tenant Ramjidas, and one sub-tenant Heeralal, but dismissed the suit against the heirs of Suryanand-another subtenant in respect of the ground-floor of the suit premises.2. It is undisputed that the premises in question were originally let out to Ramjidas who sublet the ground-floor (except one Baithak) on rent of Rs. 16/- to Suryanand In the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiffs, not only the tenant Ramjidas but the alleged sub-tenants Heeralal and Suryanand were also impleaded on the ground that a part of the premises had been sublet to them without the consent of the land-lord. Two additional grounds ware relied upon for ejectment, viz. defaults in payment of rent and nuisance. All the defendants resisted the suit and after trial the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) held that all the three grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1585; 2005(2)WLC505
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the Trial Court on the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC by which the amendment has been allowed.2. The case of the petitioners is that since the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for eviction of property under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 stating therein that the petitioners are tenant in their premises and the premises was let-out to them in the year 1985 on the agreed rent of Rs. 6000/- p.m. and in the rent note there was the condition that after expiry of every two years the 10% of the rent will be increased. As per this clause at the time of filing of suit the agreed rent was Rs. 9663/- and in the year 1997 it was further enhanced at the rate of 10% the tune of Rs. 10,630/- pursuant to the agreement dated 11.6.85.3. The petitioners defendant have fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3502
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner submitted that the earlier the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord was returned for proper presentation on 21.12.1999 against the plaintiff approached this Court and this Court remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge and the learned District judge disposing of the appeal filed by the plaintiff on 1.11.2004 directed that if valuation of the suit si reduced below Rs. 50,000/- by waiving of claim of arrears of rent by Rs. 7,000/-, the suit in question may been entertained by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the said suit originally filed on 19.8.1995 was again filed by the plaintiff waiving his claim of arrears of rent by Rs. 7000/- and thus amended suit registered on 1.11.2004 as suit No. 23/2004 - Mohan Lal v. Ram Lal was instituted in the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1977Raj255; 1977()WLN441
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East) Jaipur City dated 6th Oct., 1972 whereby he permitted an amendment to be incorporated in the plaint.2. A suit was filed by the respondent for the ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for the payment of the arrears of rent. It so happened that during the pendency of suit his son failed in the examination and, therefore, a necessity was felt by the plaintiff that his son be rehabilitated in some business and for that purpose an application was filed that the shop in dispute was required for his personal necessity and it was in these circumstances that he applied for the permission to amend his plaint. This prayer of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant on the ground that the fresh cause of action cannot be made the basis for amendment and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA No. 139/09 Ram Narayan v. Smt. Asha Devi as a leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent Smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114(h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6.10.2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1996Raj182
Arun Madan, J. 1. This civil second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C., 1908 has been preferred to this court against the judgment and decree, dated 7th March, 1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal on the ground of default preferred by the defendant-appellant while maintaining the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of nuisance and sub-letting.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') from the suit shop situated in old sabji mandi behind Johari Bazar, Jaipur, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter, referred to as the 'respondent'). It was alleged in the suit that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month and that it was an old tenancy. The plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction of ...
Tag this Judgment!