Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1827 (RAJ)

Mohammed Aslam v. L. Rs. of Smt. Parwati Devi

2015-10-29

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.4.15 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, affirming the order dated 13.7.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, in Rent Case No. 360/04, directing eviction of the petitioner from a rented commercial premises. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a rented premises, a shop, on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bona fide requirement in terms of Section 9(1)(a) and (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"). The petition was contested by the petitioner taking the stand that the petitioner is occupying the premises as tenant of Peerulal and not that of Smt.Parwati Devi. However, it was not disputed that Smt. Parwati Devi is the owner of the disputed property. The averments made regarding default in payment of rent and the bona fide requirement of the premises were also denied. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. 4. After due consideration of the material on record and the rival submissions, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that issue regarding the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties stands concluded by judgment dated 9.10.96 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 5, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 130/95, affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 14.2.03. The issues regarding default in payment of rent and reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises were also decided by the Rent Tribunal in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the respondent-landlord was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the premises in question. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties stands proved. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties stands proved. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have seriously erred in arriving at the finding that the issue regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the parties stands concluded by decision of the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.5, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 130/95. Learned counsel would submit that in the said decision there was no finding recorded that there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner. Drawing the attention of this court to the findings arrived at by the said court, learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, there was specific finding recorded that the petitioner is the tenant of Peerulal, the husband of the respondent herein. It is submitted that in absence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties being proved, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 8. It is to be noticed that earlier the respondent-landlord had filed a civil suit before the civil court of competent jurisdiction seeking eviction of the tenant Peerulal and the petitioner was disclosed to be sub-tenant occupying the premises. It is pertinent to note that while deciding the said suit, the trial court arrived at a categorical finding that the factum of Peerulal being tenant of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, is absolutely concocted and false. While deciding the issue no.7 framed therein, the trial court arrived at a categorical finding that the petitioner herein is the tenant of Peerulal, who was collecting the rent on behalf of the plaintiff, the respondent herein. 9. While deciding the issue no.7 framed therein, the trial court arrived at a categorical finding that the petitioner herein is the tenant of Peerulal, who was collecting the rent on behalf of the plaintiff, the respondent herein. 9. It is true that as per the definition of 'landlord', set out in Section 2(c) of the Act, landlord is the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let out to a tenant. But then, the natural landlord of the premises is ordinarily the owner and he is entitled to receive the rent of the premises. Merely because, the rent of the premises is collected by some other person on behalf of the owner of the premises, the right of the natural landlord, the owner of the premises, shall not stand extinguished. In this regard, the reliance may be placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishabh Chand Bhandari (Dead) by LR's. & Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Limited", 2009 (10) SCC, 601 , wherein while considering the provisions of Section 3 (iii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which is pari materia to the provisions of Section 2 (c ) of the Act of 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "7. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rent statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorise any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word "landlord", who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Madan Lal v. Hazara Singh . We approve of the view taken in the said decision." 10. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word "landlord", who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Madan Lal v. Hazara Singh . We approve of the view taken in the said decision." 10. It is not disputed before this court that the premises in question is owned by the respondent which was let out by her husband Peerulal to the petitioner herein and thus, being the natural landlord, the respondent was not precluded from maintaining the petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Thus, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, regarding the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. No other ground has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 12. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed. *******