- (1.) THE petitioner, Amritlal S/o Kanhaiyalal, has filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the eviction decree dated 17.11.2007 (Annex.8), which decree was passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sirohi, upon a compromise between the parties on 17.11.2007. The said compromise was duly signed by the parties represented by their advocate Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia, on which the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the eviction decree.
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court saying that he did not sign the said compromise, whereas he was running the business of cutlery in the shop in question situated at Main Bazar, Kumhar Panch Maili Nyat, Sirohi. Initially the shop in question was given on rent on 01.04.1951 to one Narayan Lal, who was the grandfather of the petitioner for running a tea shop at a monthly rent of Rs.45.00. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/landlord submitted that the compromise was duly signed by the father of the present petitioner, Amritlal, namely, Sh. Kanhaiyalal, who inherited such tenancy from his father, namely, Narayan Lal (Grandfather of the petitioner and the original tenant). He further submitted that the other legal representatives of original tenant, Narayan Lal, had also signed the said compromise and even the advocate Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia, representing all the parties, including the present petitioner, Amritlal also put his signatures in the said compromise on behalf of all the legal representatives of Narayan Lal. He further submits that even if it is assumed for arguments' sake that the petitioner, Amritlal has not signed the compromise application in Original Eviction Case No.2/04, the present writ petition cannot be entertained in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Pateil reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387 has held as under: - "Writ petition in dispute between landlord and tenant where only respondent is landlord is not maintainable. Supreme Court deprecated the practice of entertaining petition under Art. 227 over disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of decree, disputes between landlord and tenant, in cases of money decree and other case where disputed questions of property are involved. A writ petition is a remedy in public law which may be filed by any person but the main respondent should be either Government, Governmental agencies or a State of instrumentalities of a State within the meaning of Art.12. Private individuals cannot be equated with State or instrumentalities of the State. All the respondents in a writ petition cannot be private parties. But private parties acting in collusion with State can be respondents in a writ petition. Under the phraseology of Art.226, High Court can issue writ to any person, but the person against whom writ will be issued must have some statutory or public duty to perform."
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the order passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sirohi, this Court is of the opinion that Amritlal, the grandson of the original tenant, Narayan Lal (petitioner herein) could not directly inherit the tenancy and petitioner's father, namely, Sh. Kanhaiyalal who was also doing business in the suit shop, has admittedly signed the said compromise application under Order 25 Rule 3 CPC along-with other legal representatives of Narayan Lal, and the compromise application has also been signed by the advocate Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia, representing all the defendants/tenants (LR's of Narayan Lal) including the present petitioner Amritlal and thus all of them will be bound by the compromise decree and, therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained, contrary to the compromise terms and the same is accordingly dismissed. The eviction decree granted by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sirohi, dated 17.11.2007 is upheld. No costs. The interim order granted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 15.12.2008 staying the order dated 17.11.2007 (Annex.8) is hereby vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and both the Rent Tribunals below forthwith.;