Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 750 (RAJ)

Megh Raj v. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner

2014-03-21

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.10.13 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Appeal No.67/08, whereby the order dated 24.1.08 of the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No.8/04, allowing the petition seeking eviction and the certificate for recovery of possession issued pursuant thereto, stand affirmed. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner seeking eviction of the tenant, the respondent no.3 herein, from the rented premises, a shop, on the ground of default, sub letting and reasonable & bona fide necessity, in terms of provisions of Sections 9 (a), 9(e) and 9(i) respectively of the Rent Control Act, 2001( in short "the Act"). The sub tenant, the petitioner herein, was also added as party respondent in petition. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, claiming himself to be tenant in occupation of the premises. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. 3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal found the grounds of default and reasonable & bona fide necessity are not proved. However, the ground of sub letting raised on behalf of the respondent-landlord was found duly proved and accordingly, the petition seeking eviction of the occupants from the rented premises was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide judgment and order 24.1.08. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in affirming the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on the issue no.2 & 4, which relate to sub letting. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in disbelieving the stand of the petitioner that the premises was let out to him orally, solely on the ground that the landlord had entered into tenancy with the respondent no.3 herein through a registered lease deed. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in disbelieving the stand of the petitioner that the premises was let out to him orally, solely on the ground that the landlord had entered into tenancy with the respondent no.3 herein through a registered lease deed. Learned counsel submitted that the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner D.W.2-Rajkumar and D.W.3-Sampat Lal have categorically deposed that the premises in question wherein the petitioner is carrying on business was let out to him by the landlord-Smt. Pushpa Devi. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord had taken the stand that the petitioner has entered into premises as sub tenant in the year 1998 whereas, the petitioner had produced on record the registration certificate dated 18.2.91 (Ex.A-25) issued by the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, which clearly establishes that the petitioner is operating the business in the premises in question in the name and style of M/s. Pawan General Stores since 1991. Learned counsel submitted that the documents Exhibit A-24 and Exhibit A-26 produced on record by the petitioner have also been ignored by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel that the material on record clearly shows that Shri Rakesh Kumar had vacated the premises in the year 1990 itself and thereafter the petitioner was inducted as tenant therein. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal ignoring the material evidence on record are ex facie capricious and perverse. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. It is to be noticed that in the petition filed, the respondent/landlord had taken the stand that the tenant, respondent no.3 herein, has sub let and parted with possession of the premises without his written permission to the petitioner herein. In the reply to the petition, the petitioner had taken the stand that the lease deed dated 19.3.90 alleged to have been executed by the landlord in favour of tenant Rakesh Kumar is collusive and fictitious document. The petitioner had taken a categorical stand that the premises was let out to him by the respondent/landlord and prior to him, one Shri Jagannath Brij Mohan was carrying on retail business of tea leaves therein. The petitioner had taken a categorical stand that the premises was let out to him by the respondent/landlord and prior to him, one Shri Jagannath Brij Mohan was carrying on retail business of tea leaves therein. Thus, according to the petitioner, the premises was never let out to Shri Rajesh Kumar and there exists a landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent no.2-Smt. Pushpa Devi and the petitioner. 8. It is to be noticed that the lease deed executed between landlord-Pushpa Devi and tenant-Rajesh Kumar is a document which stands duly registered with the Sub Registrar, on 19.3.90. The endorsement of the registering officer thereon with the number of page and the book wherein the document has been copied conclusively proves that the document has been duly registered and the facts mentioned in the endorsement have occurred. In this view of the matter, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in considering the lease deed tendered in evidence as genuine document. 9. In his deposition before the Rent Tribunal , the petitioner herein deposed that Rakesh Kumar is not even known to him. The petitioner reiterated that the premises was let out to him, after it being vacated by Jagannath Brij Mohan within a year. It is pertinent to note that yet another suit filed by the landlord Smt. Pushpa Devi in the court of Civil Judge(J.D.), Bikaner also the tenant Rakesh Kumar and the petitioner herein were party defendants. That apart, the petitioner in his deposition before the Rent Tribunal, has categorically stated that he had filed the suit against Smt. Pushpa Devi which was decided against him, wherein he was not accepted to be tenant of Smt. Pushpa Devi. The petitioner deposed that the rent which was being paid to landlord Smt. Pushpa Devi was recorded in a 'kachchi likhawat' (rough account book), however, the same was not produced before the Rent Tribunal. The documents produced on record by the petitioner in the considered opinion of this court are not sufficient to draw a conclusion that the petitioner was occupying the premises between 1990 to 1998 as a tenant. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner has taken the stand before this court in terms that Rakesh Kumar had taken the premises in the year 1990 for sometime and thereafter vacated the same on 20.6.90. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner has taken the stand before this court in terms that Rakesh Kumar had taken the premises in the year 1990 for sometime and thereafter vacated the same on 20.6.90. The stand taken as aforesaid, apparently runs contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal that before his occupying the premises in question, Jagmohan Brij Mohan was the tenant in the premises. Suffice it to say that in absence of any cogent evidence on record, showing that the petitioner was occupying the premises as tenant and was not a sub tenant inducted by the tenant Rakesh Kumar, the respondent no. 3 herein, in the considered opinion of this court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******