Shripal vs Kishan Lal

Mahesh Bhagwati

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and setaside the order dated 26th July, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sambhar Lake, Jaipur District dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed u/s 13(1) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act.

Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-respondent in respect of four parts'' shop on the ground of default and bonafide necessity etc. The learned trial court determined the rent of the shop @ Rs. 1100/- per month, which was challenged by the defendant-respondent, but the appellate court confirmed the order of the trial court. The plaintiff-petitioner is found to have received the bill of electricity from the Electricity Department on 20th June, 2003. Having perused the bill, it was revealed that the bill was related to the electricity consumption in the rented shop. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application before the trial court imploring that the tenant may be directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 5027/- relating to the electricity bill, but the trial court dismissed the application. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner broke out with the argument with regard to depositing the electricity bills to be deposited by the respondent-tenant and concluded imploring that the respondent-tenant may be restrained from taking a new electricity connection in his name in the rented shop.

At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked only when the order of the trial court is found to be perverse, contrary to material, or it results in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the High court should escape from interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial court and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked sparingly.

Adverting to the facts of the case on hand and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record as also the relevant provisions of law, the instant writ petition is found to be totally funny, irrelevant and vexatious for the simple reason that the application was filed by the petitioner u/s 13(1) of Rent Control Act before the trial court beseeching that the tenant may be directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 5027/- of electricity bill relating to the electricity consumption in the rented shop. This prayer was dismissed by the trial court observing that the electricity connection in the shop had already been disconnected and the tenant was not consuming any electricity in his shop. Hence, he was not required to deposit any bill of electricity consumption. The petitioner aggrieved with this order, has filed the instant writ petition imploring that the impugned order may be quashed and set-aside.

On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the tenant was not depositing the electricity bill pertaining to consumption of electricity and the electricity connection was in his name, why does he not get the line disconnected? The learned counsel did not answer the query. Then again, on being asked, when the tenant is denying to pay the amount of electricity bill and if he has paid the bill, why does he not file the recovery suit in the Civil Court? The learned counsel did not answer this query too. Then suddenly, he broke out that he has already got the line disconnected as it was in his name, but the grievance is that the tenant is endeavouring to have new electricity connection in his own name.

It seems that all the reliefs the petitioner intends to seek only in one suit of ejectment. It is tangibly tantamount to abuse of the process of court and the abuse of the process of law. He filed an application u/s 13(1) of Rent Control Act, which he was not required to do so. There was no terms in the rent note for the tenant to deposit any electricity bill, despite that he filed a vexatious application before the trial court. Before this Court, the petitioner has made three fold submissions, which are per-se contradictory. He has been endeavouring to seek such a relief, which has not been pleaded by him in the application of eviction of the suit premises.

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not made out as to what relief does the petitioner need to seek from the court by filing the instant writ petition. The writ petition, in fact, is found to be irrelevant, frivolous, baseless and it has no legs to stand. He has endeavoured to abuse not only the process of law, but abused the process of court also. Hence, this writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold with exemplary cost.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed in limine so as to cost of Rs. 10,000/- .