Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioners have filed second of these writ petitions seeking a direction for restoration of possession to them on the ground that as per sub-Section (8) of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, the Act of 2001), judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought not to have been executed for a period of three months from the date of judgment and the petitioners ought not to have been evicted pursuant to the execution of aforesaid judgment.

Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel referring to sub-Section (8) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001 has argued that by virtue of doctrine of merger, word decision used in sub-Section (8) of Section 15 should be construed to mean final decision by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and therefore the restriction on execution of the judgment of eviction should extend even to the judgment rendered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of this Court in Zaffar Hussain and Others Vs. Gurcharan Lal Bhatia and Others : RLW 1996(1) 525. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that Nazir could not have on his own requestioned the police help to seek eviction of the petitioners from the shop in their absence. Locks of the shops were broken open with the police help in absence of petitioners and goods/belongings of the petitioners lying there have not been returned to the petitioners.