Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1004 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Sharma v. Anit Sharma

2006-03-28

PRAKASH TATIA

body2006
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, though the appellants are tenants in the suit premises of the respondents landlord, but they are residing in that house since 1946. They are in possession of house situated over a plot measuring 1556 square feet whereas they acquired a residential house from Housing Board on allotment basis which is situated on a plot measuring 256 sq. ft., therefore, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the house acquired by the appellant is a suitable residential accommodation for them. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the requirement under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) is not only acquiring of the house by the tenant but it must be suitable, then and only then, the landlord can seek decree for eviction. 3. It is also submitted that the appellants son suffered cancer and, therefore, they had to sell the house to meet with the medical expenses of their son. It is also submitted that in these peculiar facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant can be evicted from the suit premises. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that so far as the argument based on the suitable accommodation is concerned, it was never pleaded by the defendants that he is residing in the house having floor area of 1556 sq ft. and he acquired residential house from Housing Board situated on a plot measuring 262 sq. ft. It is also submitted that admittedly the house was got allotted only for personal residence of allottees and it would not have been for any other purpose. The suitability was judged by none else but the appellants/tenants themselves with respect to the house in dispute for their residence. Thereafter, they cannot say that the house is small one and, therefore, is not suitable. 5. It is also submitted that the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the house in question was in fact sold. No factual as well as oral evidence was produce to prove this fact. The two Courts below concurrently held that the house acquired by the appellants is a suitable residential accommodation, therefore, this finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC. 6. No factual as well as oral evidence was produce to prove this fact. The two Courts below concurrently held that the house acquired by the appellants is a suitable residential accommodation, therefore, this finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the two Courts below and perused the facts of the case. 7. It may be true that the appellant was occupying a bigger house but as tenant. The dream of ones having his own house, may it be small, is also a dream of any person and it is not the case of the appellant that he sought the allotment of the house from the Housing Board not for his residence. The houses are allotted by the Housing Board in phase manner as per the scheme which also may have payment of cost of house by installment which gives a facility to those persons who cannot afford the house outrightly and also sells house on outright sale basis so that the person who cannot compete the market can acquire a residential accommodation. In view of the above facts and in view of the fact that the entire scheme of housing board is for giving some benefits to the above mentioned persons, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the appellants that the house in question was not suitable and is not suitable for them. A rented portion bears less monetary burden upon a person and since then, acquiring title of the property, one is required to compromise, therefore, the appellants themselves have chosen to have a smaller house but they have acquired a suitable residential accommodation. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellants may be granted some time to vacate the suit premises. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents have serious objection to this and he submits that they have acquired their suitable residential accommodation, therefore, no time may be granted to the appellants. 11. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellants may be granted some time to vacate the suit premises. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents have serious objection to this and he submits that they have acquired their suitable residential accommodation, therefore, no time may be granted to the appellants. 11. Be it as it may be, as the appellants were residing in the house in dispute since long, therefore, looking to the totality of the facts, this Court deems that the appellants be granted some time to vacate the suit premises out of mere sympathy alone but it cannot be a period of two years as demanded by the appellants. 12. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellants furnish a written undertaking before the trial Court within a period of one month from today that they shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by or before 312.2006 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the suit premises during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decreetal amount, if due, within a period of two months from today before the trial Court or directly to the landlord, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 01.01.2007. The appellants shall also deposit the rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month of their tenancy in the trial Court. 10.13. In case of non-compliance of the order or default in payment of rent mentioned above, the decree shall become executable forthwith. 14. With the aforesaid concession, this appeal is dismissed.