DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) IN this matter relating to a petition for eviction under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'), where an appeal against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2012 as passed by the Rent Tribunal, Pali is said to be pending before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali, this Court is constrained to deprecate the attempt on the part of the defendant-appellant to put spokes in the wheels of the proceedings; and for that matter, to deprecate her conduct for the second time.
(2.) THE sum and substance of the matter remains that in the petition for eviction as filed against her, the defendant- appellant raised an objection about entitlement of the plaintiffs to maintain the petition with the submissions, inter alia, that the property belonged to a religious trust; and the trust was required to be registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 ('the Act of 1959'). On the issue framed in regard to such part of the defence plea, the Rent Tribunal, Pali ('the Rent Tribunal' hereafter) returned a negative finding by an order dated 19.10.2005 that was sought to be questioned by the appellant by way of a writ petition (CWP No. 22/2006). The stay application in the said writ petition was considered and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court with a short order dated 10.11.2006 that the finding as given on one of the issues could be challenged, if occasion so arises, at the appellate stage. The appellant attempted to question the order so passed by the learned Single Judge by way of an intra-court appeal (SAW No. 28/2007) that was considered on 14.02.2007; and a Division Bench of this Court, while deprecating the attempt on the part of the appellant, dismissed the appeal as also the writ petition with the following order:- "Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no case for interference in appeal is made out. This appeal is directed to stop the wheels of the proceedings of the original court on some interlocutory matter which needs to be deprecated. The appellant should wait for the final out come of the proceedings before the Rent Control Tribunal and raise all the grounds which may be available to him in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the writ petition are dismissed." Ultimately, the Rent Tribunal, who is otherwise supposed to deal with the petitions under the Act of 2001 expeditiously and to deliver the final verdict in a period of about six to nine months, decided the said eviction petition, filed in the year 2005, by way of the judgment dated 01.02.2012. While deciding the relevant issues in favour of the plaintiffs-landlords, the Rent Tribunal issued a certificate of recovery of possession against the defendant-appellant. Now, the appellant has filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 that remains pending with the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Pali ('the Appellate Tribunal' hereafter). In the said appeal, the appellant has adopted strange methodology in the manner that apart from joining the six (06) plaintiffs of the eviction petition as respondents Nos. 1 to 6, three (03) more persons have been included as the respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 being respectively, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur; the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur; and the Government of Rajasthan through the Collector, Pali. In the appeal so filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant also moved an application reiterating her defence plea about the property belonging to a religious trust and submitted that in view of the questions arising in the matter, the said newly arrayed persons, essentially related with the Devasthan Department of the Government of Rajasthan, were required to be joined as parties. The plaintiffs of the eviction petition, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in the appeal, raised objection against such proposition of joining of the other persons/authorities in the appeal when they were not the parties to the original proceedings. Then, several arguments were advanced before the Appellate Tribunal about desirability of issuing notices to the respondents Nos. 7 to 9, as sought to be joined. The Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 21.05.2012, referred to the provisions of Act of 2001 and found that the notices were required to be issued only to the persons who were the parties before the Rent Tribunal and, at the given stage, while accepting the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs (the respondents Nos. 1 to 6), declined to issue notices to the parties sought to be joined in the appeal. Seeking to question the said order dated 21.05.2012, the petitioner-appellant has come up to this Court attempting yet another round of litigation with reference to the interlocutory matter. In the writ petition (CWP No. 7163/2012) preferred in challenge to the aforesaid order dated 21.05.2012, the learned Single Judge of this Court found total fallacy in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Section 72 of the Act of 1959; and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition by the order dated 17.07.2012, inter alia, with the following observations:- "In my opinion, there is complete fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in appeal she has right to implead State of Rajasthan and Devasthan Department as party in view of Section 72 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The Division Bench of this Court passed order in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28/2007 while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner on 14.02.2007 that the petitioner will be entitled to raise her grounds in appeal but no direction was issued by the Division Bench that the petitioner will be entitled to implead State Government and Devasthan Department as party in this matter. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this writ petition."
(3.) UNDAUNTED, the petitioner-appellant now seeks to maintain this intra-court appeal against the order dated 17.07.2012 so passed by the learned Single of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has made the submissions over again with reference to Section 72 of the Act of 1959 and with reference to the defence plea of the appellant. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishabh Chand Bhandari (Dead) by LRs & Anr. Vs. National Engineering Industry Limited : 2009 (4) RLW 3484 to submit that the natural landlord is, ordinarily, the owner and in the present case, the deity being the owner, the Devasthan Department is required to be joined as a party. The learned counsel has also referred to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madan Gopal Vs. Raja Pratap Singh : 1964 RLW 78 to submit that per Section 72 of the Act of 1959, a notice to the Commissioner, Devasthan Department is essential and should be issued on the prima facie case and not after taking all the evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the only prayer made on behalf of the petitioner had been for issuance of the notices to the Devasthan Commissioner and the other related authorities; and such a procedure was requisite per Section 72 of the Act of 1959 and for the purpose of just and effectual determination of the questions involved in the matter. We find all the submissions as made on behalf of the appellant totally bereft of substance; and this intra-court appeal being yet another attempt on the part of the appellant to somehow elongate the litigation and to avoid its logical conclusion. ;