[2025:RJ-JP:24695] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9010/2025 1. Stayting Stayts, (OPC) Private Limited, Through Director Shri Shashi Sharma Son Of Shri Shanti Prakash Sharma Resident Of (A) House No. D 174, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur And (B) Resident Of Jalebi Chowk Village Bhumavada, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.). 2. Shri Shashi Sharma Son Of Shri Shanti Prakash Sharma, Address- (A) House No. D 174, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (B) Resident Of Jalebi Chowk Village Bhumavada, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus Smt. Prem Agrawal Wife Of Shri Prakash Agrawal, Through Power Of Attorney Sonu Agrawal Resident Of Near Jama Maszid, Gangapur City Presently Residing At Flat No. 301, Jkd Pearl, Stylom Apartment, Mahaveer Nagar, Near Ram Mandir, Jaipur Pin Code 302018. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat Ms. Meeta Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta with Mr. Tarun Singhal Mr. Harsh Saraswat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan I, Jaipur by which order has been passed for getting possession of the premises in question from the petitioners in exercise of the powers contained under Section 20 of [2025:RJ-JP:24695] (2 of 5) [CW-9010/2025] the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 has been submitted by the respondent against the petitioners for their eviction. Learned counsel submits that, during pendency of the said application, an application under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001 was submitted for determination of the Rent and the said application was decided vide order dated 06.02.2025 and the petitioners have been directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent on or before 10th of every month and deposit the said amount in the bank account of the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order was not complied with by the petitioners, hence, the respondent has submitted an application for execution which has been allowed and a direction has been issued against the petitioners to handover the possession of the premises in question to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that such a direction cannot be issued by the Executing Court, as the aforesaid order cannot be passed by the Executing Court and such direction has not been issued by the Rent Tribunal, while passing the order dated 06.02.2025. Learned counsel submits that on the subsequent date i.e., 31.05.2025, the petitioners have deposited the demand draft of Rs.5,60,000/- with the Executing Court. Therefore, the compliance of the order dated 06.02.2025 has been done and under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners will continue to deposit [2025:RJ-JP:24695] (3 of 5) [CW-9010/2025] the monthly rent, as determined by the Tribunal on or before 10th day of every month. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that a mechanism has been provided under the provisions of the Act of 2001 to protect the rights of the landlord. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioners were not paying the rent, hence, an application under Section 19-A was submitted by him and the same was rightly allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 06.02.2025 and the petitioners were directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent on or before 10th day of every month. Learned counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time, when the aforesaid order was not complied with by the petitioners, the respondent was let with no option but to file an execution application under Section 20 of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submits that as per Section 20(f) of the Act of 2001, the Executing Court passed an order for delivery of the possession of the premises to the landlord, hence, the Executing Court has not committed any error while passing the order impugned dated 30.05.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court, hence, this writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Garment Craft Versus Prakash Chand Goel reported in 2022 (4) SCC 181. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. [2025:RJ-JP:24695] (4 of 5) [CW-9010/2025] 5. Perused the record as well as the orders dated 06.02.2025 and 30.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal. The order dated 06.02.2025 clearly indicates that when the application submitted by the respondent under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001 was allowed, a clear and specific direction was issued to the petitioners to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent on or before 10th day of every month. This fact is not in dispute that the aforesaid order was not complied with by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. This fact is also not in dispute that under these circumstances, the respondent submitted an application under Section 20 of the Act of 2001 for compliance of the aforesaid order and for getting possession of the premises in question. This fact is further not in dispute that the said application was prolonged by the petitioners by way of filing several applications and finally the said application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2025 and a direction has been issued to take possession of the premises in question from the petitioner. 6. It appears that on the next date, i.e., 31.05.2025, the petitioners have complied with the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Tribunal and deposited a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-. 7. No justification has been shown by the petitioners for the aforesaid delay but looking to the fact that the petitioners have deposited the amount of Rs.5,60,000/-, this Court deems it just and proper to quash the order passed by the Tribunal, by which the direction has been issued for taking possession of the premises in question from the petitioners on the following two conditions:- [2025:RJ-JP:24695] (5 of 5) [CW-9010/2025] (I) The petitioners would deposit the demand draft of Rs.2,80,000/- per month on or before 10th of every month in the bank account of the respondent, the account number of which would be furnished by counsel for the respondent. (II) The petitioners would additionally pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (III) The petitioners would plant 21 shady trees in the public vicinity area and will further take care of these trees, till disposal of the eviction application submitted by the respondent. 8. The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 21 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 10. It is expected from the Tribunal to make all possible endeavors to decide the pending eviction application expeditiously as early as possible. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/29