- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in the impugned order dated 03.10.2012 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.10141/2012) filed by the appellant against the order dated 07.09.2012 as passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Appeal No.93/2012. The sum and substance of the matter remains that a petition for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, as filed by the respondent No.3 against the respondent No.4 (Case No.49/2009), was considered and allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on 08.03.2011. The Tribunal held the landlord � respondent No.3 entitled to recover possession of the suit premises; arrears of rent quantified at Rs.85,500.00; and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.9,500.00 per month. The appeal filed by the tenant-respondent No.4 was also dismissed by the Appellant Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur on 24.10.2011.
(2.) THE petitioner-appellant, who is the son of the respondent No.4, has filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 read with Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. raising objection against execution of the aforesaid certificate of recovery of possession and arrears of rent on the ground that the rent of the premises in question was being paid out of the funds of the partnership comprising of himself and the respondent No.4. The Rent Tribunal registered the objections for consideration but, on the prayer for interim relief, directed stay over execution proceedings on the condition of the objector-appellant depositing entire arrears of rent in the bank account of the landlord. Against the order so passed by the learned Tribunal on 27.07.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal that was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 07.09.2012. After considering the matter in the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against the aforesaid orders dated 27.07.2012 and 07.09.2012, the learned Single Judge of this Court was satisfied that there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunals concerned in passing the order for stay over execution of the certificate subject to the condition that the entire arrears of rent were deposited. The learned Single Judge observed, inter alia, as under: - "8. Indisputably, the rent of the premises has not been paid w.e.f. 1.4.08 either by the petitioner firm, which claims to be in occupation of the premises as tenant or by the respondent- tenant Deendayal Khatri in his individual capacity. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when father and son are partner of the firm then, it cannot be believed that the son who is partner in the firm was not aware about the eviction proceedings pending before the Rent Tribunal and the order of eviction passed, which stands affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the rent petition was contested by the respondent-tenant Deendayal and at no point of time, he had taken the stand that the premises is let out to the firm and not to him in his individual capacity. The rent of the premises being due w.e.f. 1.4.08 is not disputed before this court and therefore, the Tribunal has committed no jurisdictional error in passing the order staying the execution of the Certificate of Recovery of Possession subject to the condition that the petitioner herein, which claims to be in occupation of premises in question as tenant, deposits the arrears of rent within the stipulated period." Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has substantial grounds to urge in the objection petition under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. and fastening of the entire liability of rent on him and that too, by way of payment in one-go without providing even breathing time and some relaxation in the form of installments, would not be serving the cause of justice; and because of such an onerous condition, the petitioner-appellant would rather be deprived of making submissions before the Tribunal in his meritorious case.
(3.) THE submissions made on behalf of the appellant remain totally bereft of substance when examined in the context of the facts situation of the case and the backdrop in which the objections have been filed. The respondent No.4 is none other but the father of the petitioner-appellant. The appellant has taken up the litigation in the name of "M/s. Leela Export House", said to be a partnership firm, with the appellant and his father being the partners. It had been the case of the appellant that the rent was being paid out of the funds of the partnership. However, it remains a concluded finding that the rent of the premises in question has not been paid since 01.04.2008. Obviously, on the stand as sought to be taken, the petitioner- appellant, Sh. Mukesh Khatri S/o Deen Dayal Khatri, who is seeking to maintain the objection petition, is directly liable to make payment of the rent; and if the rent is not paid, all the coercive proceedings can be adopted against him too.;