M/S M.P. AUTOMOBILES Vs. PUNIT MITTAL
LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-233
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (FROM: JAIPUR)
Decided on July 14,2015

M/S M.P. Automobiles Appellant
VERSUS
Punit Mittal Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition has been filed by M/s. M.P. Automobiles and its partners Smt. Indra and Mahendra Kumar, hereinafter referred to as "the tenant" against Punit Mittal, hereinafter referred to as "the landlord", challenging the judgment dated 07.10.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur, whereby eviction petition filed by landlord has been allowed, and the judgment dated 08.04.2015 of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur in Appeal No.23/2011 filed by tenants there against, has been dismissed.
(2.)The rented premise, situated at Kumher Gate, Bharatpur, was let out by father of landlord, to the firm M/s. M.P. Automobiles for a fixed rent of Rs. 225/- per month on 01.03.1974. It was pleaded by the landlord that as per the rent-note, if there was any change in composition of partnership firm, intimation would be sent to the landlord. In the year 1992 the rent was enhanced to Rs.400/- and thereafter, the rent was again enhanced to Rs.600/- per month on 01.04.1998. Earlier, defendant No.5 (in the original application) Mahendra Kumar filed a suit against landlord Punit Mittal and one Babulal stating therein that he should not be evicted from the property in question without following due process of law. Defendant No.5 Mahendra Kumar sent a legal notice through his counsel Shri Rakesh Sharma on 10.06.2003 to landlord Punit Mittal, demanding his bank account and in reply thereto dated 18.09.2003, he gave his bank account. According to the tenant, all these events took place when Punit Mittal was not the owner of the rented premise. He claims to have lost the original rent note, which was misplaced but finally he found the same in the month of July, 2004 in pile of old papers stored in old box. On 13.09.2004, the landlord sent a notice for recovery of due rent and for revision of rent as well as to vacate the premise. It was further alleged in the eviction petition that in violation of the terms and conditions of the rent note. The defendant No.4 Ramshri was struck out from partnership and the premises has been given on subtenancy to defendant No.4 Mahendra Kumar. In the eviction petition, prayer for eviction was made.
(3.)Defendants No.1, 2 and 5 filed reply to the eviction petition and stated that Punit Mittal was not entitled to file eviction petition as he has not shown as to on what basis he claims himself to be owner of the property. Defendant No.3 Vishnu Dutt Jain has retired from the partnership. The property in question was taken on rent in the year 1974 by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. Defendant No.5 Mahendra Kumar is not subtenant but he used to merely assist her mother defendant No.2 Indra in the business of the firm and that no rent amount is due. The landlord has, under threat, got the amount of rent enhanced, but when the tenant refused to pay the enhanced amount of rent, the eviction petition was filed. Defendant No.5 has described himself as Manager of the firm. In the family partition, the rented shop came to the share of Punit Mittal (landlord). A family settlement deed was executed to that effect on 29.03.1975 and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Bharatpur on 31.03.1975. Information thereabout was given to tenant, who thereafter started making payment of rent to the landlord. It was further pleaded that defendant No.5 Mahendra Kumar describing himself as the Manager of the firm, filed a suit against landlord and one Babulal, wherein he claimed to be tenant in the suit premise and prayed for injunction against his forcible dispossession. The said suit was dismissed on 03.09.2002, whereagainst appeal filed by him, is still pending before the appellate court. Defendant No.5 Mahendra Kumar sent a legal notice through his Advocate Rakesh Sharma to landlord Punit Mittal, wherein he described himself as tenant in the suit premise and demanded from landlord the particulars of bank account. The landlord, by letter dated 18.09.2003 furnished the bank account details. He did not have knowledge of the question of rent note. When landlord got this property in the family settlement in his share, he did not procure the copy of the rent note as the original rent note was misplaced and finally he found the same in the month of July, 2004 in pile of old papers stored in old box. The originally agreed rent amount was increased from time to time. The rent note was executed in favour of the tenant-firm M/s M.P. Automobiles Limited, of which defendant Nos.2 to 4 were partners. The defendant No.3 Vishnu Dutt Jain had relinquished his share in the firm and retired. The defendant No.4 Ramshree also retired from the firm. Receipt of the rent was issued by the landlord Punit Mittal since 1975. Prayer was made for rejection of the eviction petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.