Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shiv Shankar Mahawar vs Lalit Kumar &Anr; on 31 October, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15578/2017
Shiv Shankar Mahawar S/o Shir Satyapal Mahawar, by Caste
Mahajan, Aged About 50 Years, Prop. Jyoti Minerals Sales
Corporation, First Floor, Near Madan Kutir Jublibas Over Bridge,
Alwar, Presently Working At G-177(A), MIA, Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal Mahawar, by Caste Mahajan,
Aged About 56 Years, R/o Madan Kutir Sadak No. 2, Near
Overbridge, Tehsil and District Alwar Through Krishna Kumar
Gupta, by Caste Mahajan, R/o Madan Kutir Sadak No. 2, Near
Overbridge, Tehsil and District Alwar.
--Respondent-Plaintiff
2. M/s Jyoti Minerals Sales Corporation, First Floor, Madan Kutir Jublibas, Sadak No. 2, Near Overbridge through Partner Shivshankar Mahawar S/o Satyapal Mahawar, by Caste Mahajan, First Floor, Madan Kutir Jublibas, Sadak No. 2, Near Overbridge, Alwar Presently Working At G-177(A), MIA, Alwar (Raj.)
----Performa-Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 31/10/2017 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer and also heard the counsel for the respondent-landlord.
The landlord laid a suit against the petitioner-non- applicant No.1 (hereinafter 'the non-applicant no.1') and a partnership firm of which the non-applicant no.1 was a partner which was impleaded as non-applicant no.2 on the ground that the (2 of 3) [CW-15578/2017] tenanted premises though let out to the non- applicant no.1 had unauthorizedly sub-let to the non-applicant no.2.
On the service of notice, the non-applicant no.2 alleged to be the sub-tenant unauthorizedly inducted filed a reply. Reply on behalf of the non-applicant no.1 in his personal capacity was not filed despite notice and two opportunities. The Rent Tribunal in the circumstances made proceedings ex-parte against the non- applicant no.1--the tenant on 11.04.2017.
The non-applicant no.1, the tenant now the petitioner before this Court in the circumstances moved an application for recall of the order dated 11.04.2017. That application has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 24.05.2017. Hence this petition.
Having heard the counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that in the overall facts of the case it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the order dated 11.04.2017 whereby proceedings were taken ex-parte against the non-applicant no.1 and the subsequent order dated 24.05.2017 whereby the application for recall of the order dated 11.04.2017 has been dismissed. This for the reason counsel for the non- applicant submitted that no reply to the eviction petition will be filed by the non-applicant no.1 but only an application to adopt reply of the non-applicant will be filed and thus no delay in the adjudication of the eviction petition will be caused.
The petition stands allowed accordingly. As the matter pertains to the year 2015, the Rent Tribunal is directed to dispose of the eviction application in issue (3 of 3) [CW-15578/2017] within a period of 12 months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
As directed by this Court, an amount of Rs.25,000/- as security towards costs has been deposited by the petitioner-non- applicant no.1 by way of demand draft in the name of Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. The said amount now be refunded to him.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Himanshu/47.