Kuldeep Singh & Anr. vs Shri Ram Charan Chorasiya & Ors.

The petitioners-objectors (hereinafter ''the objectors'') have challenged the order dated 16-1-2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer

dismissing their application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter ''the Act of 2001'') for taking the purported

agreement dated 24.4.1985 on record.

The facts of the case are that respondent-applicant (hereafter ''the applicant'') filed an eviction application against the respondents-non

applicants (here-in-after ''non applicants''). The said eviction application was allowed and certificate of possession was issued in the applicant''s

favour. An appeal laid thereagainst was also dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The tenants then filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

2182/2014 and for lack of merits in the petition, sought time to vacate the tenanted property, which was granted to them, on consent of the

counsel appearing for the landlord - as instructed.

The objectors then filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 in the course of execution proceedings for taking on record a

purported agreement dated 24.4.1985. The said application has been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal observing for reasons recorded that the

document in issue was suspect and even otherwise belated filed at the stage of final arguments in the execution application only with the intent to

procrastinate. The executing court also noted that in support of the purported agreement dated 24.4.1985, affidavit of none of the alleged

witnesses thereto was filed, which could prima-facie establish the authenticity and genuineness of the agreement dated 24.4.1985.

In my view, executing court has rightly dismissed the application in exercise of its discretion on an objective consideration of the facts of the

case. By the application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001, objectors wanted to bring additional evidence on record in execution petition at the

stage of final arguments therein, which could not be allowed to be done.

Counsel for the objectors has not been able to make out a case of the impugned order suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law. No

litigant can be allowed to abuse the procedure of the court, take it for granted and/ or create hindrance in execution of a degree. The court has

ample power to conduct and regulate the execution proceedings in accordance with law. That has been done in the instant case by the impugned

order. It is not for this court in the exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the

discretion of the courts below exercised for good reason set out in the impugned order. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India can be invoked only when the orders passed by the courts below are shockingly perverse, or vitiated by misdirection in law

or lack in jurisdiction. None of the situations obtain in the present case.

The impugned order of the executing court is reasonable, just and proper seeks as it does to remove the last mile obstruction in rendering justice

to a litigant. I find no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.