Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1496 (RAJ)

Narain Das v. Rent Appellate Tribunal Rajsamand

2015-08-10

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 15.5.15 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.09 of the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand, allowing the petition seeking eviction of the fourth respondent/tenant and the petitioner/subtenant from the rented premises, stands dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that third respondent, Kumawat Samaj, filed a petition under Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") against the fourth respondent and the petitioner herein, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide requirement and sub letting. 3. The premises was let out by the third respondent to the fourth respondent, however, it was averred that the premises has been sub let by the fourth respondent to the petitioner herein. The petition was contested by the petitioner taking the stand that he is in occupation of the land measuring 687.41 sq. yard, comprising Arazi no.1649, which is entered in the revenue record as Abadi land in the name of Municipal Board, Rajsamand and not the land comprising Arazi No.1670 owned by the third respondent. It was averred that the petitioner had applied for regularization of his possession over the land in question and as per the directions of Municipal Board, Rajsamand, he had deposited regularization charges a sum of Rs.40,930/- vide challan no.15 dated 20.12.2000. The petitioner claimed that he had taken sawmill and ginning machines on contract basis from the fourth respondent herein and not the premises in question and therefore, he cannot be said to be sub tenant of fourth respondent. 4. The fourth respondent in its reply to the petition while admitting the landlord and tenant relationship, stated that at the premises in question, a sawmill and two ginning machines were installed, which has been given on contract basis to Narain Das, the petitioner herein and the premises is presently in his actual occupation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and the parties led their evidence. 6. After due consideration, the Rent Tribunal decided the issues regarding the reasonable bona fide requirement and subletting in favour of the third respondent and against the fourth respondent and the petitioner. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and the parties led their evidence. 6. After due consideration, the Rent Tribunal decided the issues regarding the reasonable bona fide requirement and subletting in favour of the third respondent and against the fourth respondent and the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking eviction of the petitioner and fourth respondent from the premises in question was allowed vide judgment and order dated 14.12.09. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as aforesaid. Hence, this petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in occupation of the premises comprising Arazi no.1649 and not the premises comprising Arazi no. 1670, alleged to have been let out by the third respondent to the fourth respondent. Learned counsel submitted that despite specific case being set out by the petitioner in this regard in the reply to the petition filed, no issue was framed by the Rent Tribunal in respect thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had taken the specific plea that he had constructed rooms, latrine etc. over the land comprising khasra no.1649 and on that account, the windows of office of Zila Abhilekhagar belonging to the third respondent were closed. Learned counsel would submit that the factum of the construction being raised by the petitioner over the land in question was well within the knowledge of the third respondent but, no objection was raised in this regard at the relevant time. Learned counsel would submit that the main dispute between the parties was with regard to the identity of the land as to whether the premises in question is situated in Arazi No.1649 or in Arazi No.1670 but the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have failed to decide the dispute raised appropriately. Learned counsel submitted that the documentary evidence on record showing that the petitioner is in possession of the land comprising Arazi No.1649 and not the Arazi No.1670, as alleged has not been taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal, in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the documentary evidence on record showing that the petitioner is in possession of the land comprising Arazi No.1649 and not the Arazi No.1670, as alleged has not been taken into consideration by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal, in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation of the petitioner regarding collusion between the third respondent and the fourth respondent has also been ignored by the Rent Tribunal saying that there was no such plea taken by the petitioner in this regard in the reply filed. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have misinterpreted the deposition of the petitioner, while observing that the factum of possession over the suit premises has been admitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel urged that the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, on the issue of subletting, are ex facie capricious and perverse. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the caveator submitted that the factum of landlord and tenant relationship has not been disputed by the third respondent, who was inducted as tenant in the premises in question. Learned counsel submitted that the third respondent while contesting the petition has taken a categorical stand that the premises in question and the machineries installed thereon has been given by it to the petitioner herein on contract basis. It was the specific stand taken by the third respondent that the premises is presently in actual occupation of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel would submit that the issue regarding sub letting having been framed, it was absolutely not necessary for the Rent Tribunal to frame any other specific issue regarding the identity of the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that after due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have concurrently found that the petitioner is in occupation of the premises in question situated in Arazi No.1670 and the stand taken by the petitioner regarding the premises in his possession is situated in Arazi No.1649, has been found to be incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal remain findings of facts and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal remain findings of facts and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, while denying the factum of sub-tenancy, the petitioner had taken a specific stand in the reply to the petition that the premises occupied by him is situated in Arazi no.1649 and not in Arazi No.1670. But then, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner on account of the Rent Tribunal not framing a specific issue regarding the identity of the land. As a matter of fact, the issue with regard to the identity of the land in occupation of the petitioner was implicit in the issue framed by the Rent Tribunal regarding sub letting. Moreover, it is a matter of record that the party had gone to the trial fully aware about the question raised regarding the identity of the land and have also led evidence in this regard. It is pertinent to note that by virtue of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, during the course of hearing, the Rent Tribunal is required to hold such summary inquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition and therefore, even if the specific issues are not framed, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record, on the issues arising in the matter, cannot be faulted with. Suffice it to say that no prejudice or injustice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner on account of non framing of the specific issue by the Rent Tribunal regarding the identity of the land in question. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard, is absolutely devoid of any merit. 13. Coming to the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of sub letting, it is to be noticed that it was the specific stand of the four respondent before the Rent Tribunal that the sawmill and the ginning machines were installed by them on the premises let out and the same were given on contract basis to the petitioner herein. It was also specific stand of the fourth respondent that presently, the premises let out is in exclusive occupation of the petitioner herein. In his deposition before the Rent Tribunal, NAW 1-Bhagwat Singh has categorically admitted that the possession of the premises was handed over by the fourth respondent to the petitioner herein. In the cross examination, he has categorically stated that the machineries were installed on the premises let out and it is incorrect to say that only machineries were given to the petitioner herein on contract basis. The Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal found that even NAW3-Narain Das, the petitioner herein, has admitted in his cross examination that the land on which sawmill and ginning machine are installed, is in his exclusive possession. It is pertinent to note that as per the report of Tehsildar exhibited in evidence as Ex.12, the petitioner was not found in possession of the land comprising Arazi No.1649 rather, he was found to be in possession of the land comprising Arazi No.1670, which is entered in the revenue record as land belonging to Kumawat Samaj, the third respondent herein. That apart, as per the letter dated 4.6.08 of the Directorate, Local Self Government Department, available on record as Ex.18, the possession of the petitioner was not found on the land comprising Arazi No.1649, as claimed and it was specifically observed that he is not legally entitled for regularization and the charges deposited by him for regularization of his possession over the land, deserves to be refunded. It has also come on record that an amount of Rs.40,930/- deposited by the petitioner was refunded by the Municipal Board, Rajsamand vide cheque no.242022 dated 1.8.08, clarifying that after inquiry, it is found that the land in question falls within Arazi No.1670 and not in the Arazi No.1649, as claimed by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself had made an application (Ex.20) to the Municipal Board for handing over of the cheque issued and acknowledged the receipt thereof. 14. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal reveals that apart from recording the findings on the issues framed by the Rent Tribunal, all the objections raised by the petitioner have also been decided after objective consideration of the evidence on record. 15. 14. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal reveals that apart from recording the findings on the issues framed by the Rent Tribunal, all the objections raised by the petitioner have also been decided after objective consideration of the evidence on record. 15. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal that the petitioner is in occupation of the land comprising Arazi No.1670 let out by the third respondent to the fourth respondent, is based on appreciation of evidence in its entirety and objectivity and 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. 16. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the third respondent. Petition Dismissed.