- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited against order dated 23.09.2013 of the Rent Appellate Tribunal affirming thereby order dated 02.07.2011 of the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, and dismissing appeal of the petitioner. The Rent Tribunal by order dated 02.07.2011 allowed the application of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Usha Gupta. Facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Smt. Usha Gupta, landlord of the suit premises, filed an application before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of petitioner-Corporation as also for recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month till the disputed property was handed over to the respondent No. 1. It was pleaded in the application that a lease agreement was executed between petitioner-Corporation and respondent No. 1 on 07.03.1998 for a period of ten years, which was renewed until 31.03.2008. Therefore, the lease agreement came to an end by efflux of time on that day. It was pleaded that since the petitioner-Corporation has paid up capital of more than one crore rupees, therefore the eviction petition matter would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that general provision of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act would not apply. It was further pleaded that after termination of lease agreement by to efflux of time, possession of petitioner-Corporation in the lease premises became unauthorized after 31.03.2008 entitling respondent to seek its eviction and recovery of possession. Even though the respondent was not required to serve a notice upon petitioner-Corporation, nevertheless a notice dated 15.04.2008 was sent to petitioner-tenant calling upon him to vacate the premises. Despite the said notice, petitioner continued to occupy the leased premises. Therefore, the respondent filed the application praying for eviction of petitioner and till the suit premises was handed over to respondent, petitioner be directed to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 900/-.
(2.) The petitioner-Corporation contested the aforesaid application and disputed that the property was taken on lease of Rs. 900/- per month. It was stated that actually agreed monthly rent was Rs. 800/-. Respondent earlier also filed a suit for eviction on 17.2.1998, on the premise that the lease agreement stood terminated with effect from 31.3.1998. Petitioner had specifically denied that statement. Petitioner further denied that provisions of Chapter II and Chapter II of the Rent Control Act, 2001 cannot be made applicable to the present dispute. It was admitted that provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the TP Act') would apply to disputed property. The tenancy of the petitioner continued as petitioner had become tenant by holding over. Petitioner by way of additional plea brought on record order dated 6.1.2006 of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby earlier suit filed by the respondent was decided. It is clear from that order that lease agreement dated 7.3.1998 came to an end on 31.3.1998 and thereafter possession of petitioner over leased premises was as a trespasser. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties came to an end. The application for eviction filed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act was thus not maintainable.
(3.) The Rent Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, allowed application filed by respondent landlord vide order dated 02.07.2011. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which too was dismissed by order dated 23.09.2013. Hence this writ petition.;