Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2000 (RAJ)

Heera Lal Khamesra v. Mohd. Anwar Haq

2015-12-02

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 21.11.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 CPC, seeking directions to the petitioner to produce the map of the building, wherein the disputed premises is situated, has been allowed. 2. The petitioner preferred a petition seeking eviction of the respondent from a shop on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement pleaded in terms that the petitioner who is doctor by profession, requires the premises to establish a Sonography Centre therein. The petition is being contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent preferred the application as aforesaid, seeking directions to the petitioner to produce the map of the building wherein the disputed premises is situated, stating that the building in question consists of 30-40 rooms, which has been concealed by the petitioner herein. It was averred that if the map of the building is produced, the position regarding the number of rooms existing therein, shall stand clarified. 4. The application has been allowed by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is operating his medical practise in his residential premises and the bona fide necessity of the commercial premises attached thereto, is pleaded for establishment of a Sonography Centre therein and thus, the question with regard to the number of rooms existing in the building is absolutely irrelevant. Learned counsel submitted that if any other accommodation is available with the petitioner to fulfil the requirement, nothing prevented the respondent from leading evidence before the Rent Tribunal and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal directing the petitioner to produce the map of the building, which is absolutely not relevant for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the building in question consists of 30-40 rooms and therefore, so as to clarify the position regarding the availability of alternative accommodations with the petitioner, which satisfy the requirement as pleaded, it is absolutely necessary that the map of the building wherein the disputed premises is situated, is directed to be produced on record. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal after due consideration, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the bona fide requirement of the disputed commercial premises is pleaded by the petitioner in terms that he intends to establish a Sonography Centre therein. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has pleaded bona fide necessity of commercial premises for commercial use and thus, the factum of existence of the rooms in the residential building, is absolutely irrelevant. Moreover, the petitioner has pleaded the bona fide necessity of the premises stating that the premises in question is adjoining to his residence wherein he is operating his medical practise. It is pertinent to note that in the reply to the petition filed, the petitioner has specifically pleaded availability of some other commercial premises with the petitioner and it is always open for him to lead evidence in this regard to establish that the alternative accommodation is available to satisfy the requirement of the petitioner and the requirement as pleaded is not bona fide. In any case, the map of the building alleged to be consisting of 30-40 rooms is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute between the parties and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in allowing the application preferred by the respondent, directing the petitioner to produce the map of the building as prayed for. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 21.11.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur is set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.