Anil Kumar Saini vs Mohanlal

Rekha Borana, J

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by Rent Tribunal, Sardarshahar, District Churu whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant has been rejected.

The ground raised by the defendant in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was firstly, that a suit for eviction was earlier preferred by the plaintiff wherein an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred by the defendant and the same was allowed, as a consequence of which, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The suit having once been dismissed, the present suit for the same reliefs would not be maintainable and would be barred by law. Secondly, the fact of the earlier suit having been dismissed, has been concealed in the present suit and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected on the said ground also. Thirdly, all the necessary parties have not been impleaded in the present suit and fourthly, that the present petition has been filed on the basis of a Will dated 21.08.2015 which was not averred in the earlier suit and hence, the plaint deserves to be rejected. The learned Court below rejected all the objections as raised by the defendant and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC aggrieved of which the present revision petition has been filed.

A perusal of the record shows that in the earlier suit the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was allowed only on the ground of jurisdiction. Vide the order dated 30.03.2017 passed in the earlier suit, it was held by the Court that the subject matter was based on the relationship of a landlord and tenant and therefore, in view of the fact that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 had been enacted in the Municipal area of Sardarshahar w.e.f. 11.07.2014, the jurisdiction to hear the matter involving the dispute of a landlord and tenant would only be with the Rent Tribunal and not to a Civil Court. Meaning thereby, the earlier suit was rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction holding that the dispute as raised before the Court could be raised only before a Rent Tribunal.

It is only in pursuance to the said order that the present eviction petition has been filed before the Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the ground as raised by the petitioner of the earlier suit having been dismissed and the present suit being not maintainable because of the said reason, cannot be held to be tenable. It is clear that the earlier suit was not even entertained by the Civil Court what to say of any adjudication or final decision.

So far as the ground of the Will dated 21.08.2015 or the non-joinder of all the parties is concerned, the same firstly, cannot be the grounds to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC and secondly, the same are the issues to be decided by the Court after evidence being led by the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 467 and the judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji, Chhota Bhandar vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors., (2008) 2 RLW 1390 and S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.38/2010 (Annant Pal Singh vs. Sumer Singh & Anr.) decided on 22.12.2016.

In the specific opinion of this Court, none of the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgments would apply to the present matter as all those matters pertained to vexatious and meritless suits. In those matters, the Court specifically reached to the conclusion that the suit was an abuse of the process of Court and hence, were dismissed as a consequence of the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

As observed above, the present suit for eviction filed before the Rent Tribunal being totally in terms as provided under the law and the order impugned as passed by the Court below being also in consonance with law does not deserve any interference. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.

The stay petition also stands dismissed.