w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Kishan Chaturvedi v/s Swami Vaidh Ram Prakash Shishya Swami Ji Ram Das Ji & Others

    Civil Writ Petition No. 14372 of 2011

    Decided On, 02 December 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI

    For the Petitioner: A.C. Upadhyay, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sunil Jain, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 29th September, 2011 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that respondent No. 1-plaintiff Swami Vaidh Ram Prakash Shishya Swami Ji Ram Das Ji filed a civil Suit No. 53/2000 against respondent No. 3-Hari Shankar for eviction and arrears of rent with regard to the premises

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

situated in Haveli Municipal No. 4317, Rasta Bhairu Ji, Kundi Gran, Chowkdi Ghatgate, Jaipur. During pendency of the suit, respondent-defendant No. 3-Hari Shankar expired on 23rd April, 2007 and his legal heirs namely, Ram Shankar, Dharam Shankar, Shyam Babu, Tikam Chand, Ashok Chaturvedi & Smt. Lalita Devi were taken on record. At the same time, the petitioner-Ram Kishan Chaturved filed one application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC imploring the Court to implead him as party defendant as he was the actual legal heir of deceased Hari Shankar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through Section 3(vii) of the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 wherein the term "Tenant" has been defined and canvassed that the petitioner-Ram Kishan Chaturvedi had been living with Hari Shankar and he was in continuous possession of the suit premises, thus, he fell within the ambit of 'Tenant'. The persons who have been made defendants are not actually the legal heirs of deceased Hari Shankar and they will not defend the suit properly. Whereas the petitioner is the real legal representative of the deceased Hari Shankar and if he is not allowed to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, the suit shall be decreed in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff and he shall be deprived of seeking justice. The order of the learned trial Court is not proper and hence, the same deserves to be set aside.

4. E-converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper and contended that it did not warrant any intervention.

5. Learned counsel further argued that there was one more suit filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff Swami Vaidh Ram Prakash Shishya Swami Ji Ram Das Ji against respondent No. 3/4-Teekam Chand wherein the petitioner Ram Kishan Chaturvedi had stated on oath that he had been living with Teekam Chand and he was a member of his family. His name figured in Ration Card. Thus, the statement of the petitioner is found to be per se contradictory. Learned counsel argued when the petitioner himself had already deposed in the Court that he was living with Teekam Chand being a member of his family, how can he be believed to say that he had been living with deceased Hari Shankar and after his death he has been in possession of the suit premises. The petitioner is not a 'tenant' within the definition of Section 3(vii) of the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that the petitioner was not found to be a tenant within the definition of 'tenants' envisaged in Section 3(vii) of the Act, 1950.

7. Apart this, the petitioner is also not found to have been in continuous possession of the suit premises as he was not living with Hari Shankar when he was alive. On the contrary the statement of the petitioner deposed in case of Swami Vaidh Ram Prakash Shishya Swami Ji Ram Das Ji v. Teekam Chand suggested that he had living with Teekam Chand being a member of his family. The Rashan Card of Teekam Chand is also found to have contained the name of petitioner Ram Niwas which also suggested that the petitioner Ram Niwas was living with Teekam Chand as a member of his family. The learned trial Court having discussed all these facts and circumstances adlongum did not find the petitioner Ram Niwas to have fallen within the definition of tenant envisaged under Section 3(vii) of the Act, 1950.

8. It is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the High Court should invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction only when the findings in the impugned order is found to be perverse, contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also cautioned that the High Court should exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution sparingly and not in routine and the Court should not upset the pure finding of facts.

9. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329: 2010 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 457 their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a reserved and exceptional power for judicial intervention to be exercised not merely for the grant of relief in any even of the case, but only to be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice. It has been held that the power is unfettered, but subject to high degree of judicial discipline and interference is to be kept at the minimum.

10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the impugned order rendered by the learned trial Court is found to be perfectly just and proper and the same warrants no interference.

11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.

12. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.

Writ petition and stay application dismissed.
O R