Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 493 (RAJ)

Meenu Maheshwari v. Lalit Prabha

2016-04-06

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.2.16 of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant against the final order dated 25.11.14, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Rent Case No.858/12, allowing the petition preferred on behalf of the Respondent/landlord u/s 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act") and issuing the certificate for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, stands dismissed. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner/tenant before the Rent Tribunal. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable & bona fide requirement of the premises, the tenant having acquired vacant possession of suitable premises and non user of the premises for a continuous period of six months, in terms of the provisions of Section 9(a), 9(i), 9(j) & 9(k) of the Act, respectively. The petition was contested by the petitioner/tenant by filing a reply thereto. 3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, all the grounds set out in the petition for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the rented premises, were found proved by the Rent Tribunal and accordingly, the petition preferred by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the rented premises, was allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the final order passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, the petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on all the issues and accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner never took the premises in question on rent from the respondent - Lalit Prabha and the same was let out to him by Shri Durga Prasad Sarsawat and till the filing of the petition, he was receiving the rent from the petitioner as owner of the premises. Learned counsel submitted that Shri Durga Prasad never informed the petitioner that Smt. Lalit Prabha is owner of the property and thus, there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner. Learned counsel urged that the respondent had filed the affidavit of Durga Prasad as witness, however, during the inquiry, he was not produced for cross examination. Learned counsel urged that the respondent had filed the affidavit of Durga Prasad as witness, however, during the inquiry, he was not produced for cross examination. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had prayed for summoning Durga Prasad for cross examination, however, neither the Rent Tribunal nor Appellate Rent Tribunal acceded to the request made and thus, the petitioner stands deprived of proper opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submitted that Smt. Lalit Prabha claimed herself to be owner of the property on the strength of the sale deed whereas, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she never purchased the property and categorically stated that she had acquired the property by way of Will executed in her favour by her mother. Learned counsel submitted that Nand Kishore, husband of Smt. Lalit Prabha, has settled business in a shop situated inside the Jodhpur City, and there is no reason for him to shift his business in the shop in question. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the petition, Smt. Lalit Prabha has entered into an agreement to sell with Rajesh Sarsawat and thus, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal regarding reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that merely disconnection of the electricity supply in the premises in question, in no manner, could be considered to be conclusive evidence regarding non user of the premises. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in affirming the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal that the petitioner has shifted his business carried on in the shop in question to another shop. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the petition seeking eviction filed under the provisions of the Act, the question of ownership of the premises, is not even required to be gone into. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord and tenant relationship was not denied by the petitioner and on the basis of the material on record, it stands established that the petitioner had accepted the respondent to be his landlord. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord and tenant relationship was not denied by the petitioner and on the basis of the material on record, it stands established that the petitioner had accepted the respondent to be his landlord. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on various grounds for eviction set out in the petition, remain findings of facts, which 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. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. It is true that in the reply to the petition filed, the petitioner had taken the stand that he had initially taken the premises in the year 1985 from Durga Prasad Sarsawat and he had no knowledge as to when the respondent/landlord has become owner of the property. But then, the fact remains that the landlord and tenant relationship was not denied by the petitioner as such, to the contrary, accepting the landlord and tenant relationship, the petitioner had deposited the rent in the bank account of the respondent. The factum of the premises being let out to the petitioner by Durga Prasad Sarsawat in the year 1985, is not proved by producing any evidence worth the name on record. To the contrary, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had applied for installation of the electricity connection in the premises in question before the Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur City, by way of an application in prescribed form (Ex.14), on 29.6.06, which was accompanied by an affidavit of the respondent - Smt. Lalit Prabha as landlord (Ex.14/1), as also the sale deed dated 6.9.88 (Ex.14/2) of the shop in question executed by Munna Lal Sarsawat in favour of the respondent Smt. Lalit Prabha. That apart, the information supplied by the Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur DISCOM to Public Information Officer, Jodhpur DISCOM (Ex.17), also fortifies the fact that on the basis of the application preferred as aforesaid, the electricity connection installed in the premises in question, was later disconnected on account of outstanding dues. That apart, the information supplied by the Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur DISCOM to Public Information Officer, Jodhpur DISCOM (Ex.17), also fortifies the fact that on the basis of the application preferred as aforesaid, the electricity connection installed in the premises in question, was later disconnected on account of outstanding dues. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent if at all was required to be proved, stands sufficiently proved. 9. As a matter of fact, for the determination of the question of landlord and tenant relationship in a petition for eviction under the provisions of the Act, the question of title or ownership of the premises is not required to be gone into, rather, the questions with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship, their rights and liabilities arising in the matter have to be determined and therefore, even if there is some discrepancies in evidence regarding the manner in which the respondent had acquired the ownership of the premises in question, is not of much relevance. 10. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal regarding default in payment of rent, is erroneous. 11. It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge for his bona fide requirement. It has been proved by the respondent/landlord on the basis of the evidence on record that her husband having undergone operation of heart is not in position to carry on his business in a shop situated at a distant place from their residence. That apart, the petitioner was not able to prove as alleged that alternative premises is available with the landlord or her husband, for shifting of the business. Further, on the basis of the evidence on record, it stands proved that the petitioner is carrying on business in a different premises and the premises in question is lying closed for a period of more than six months preceding the date of filing of the petition. 12. Further, on the basis of the evidence on record, it stands proved that the petitioner is carrying on business in a different premises and the premises in question is lying closed for a period of more than six months preceding the date of filing of the petition. 12. Having gone through the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal, in its entirety and objectivity, this court is firmly of the view that the findings recorded on various grounds set out for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, remain findings of facts, which 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. 13. Coming to the contention of the petitioner regarding the summoning the deponent Durga Prasad for cross examination, it is true that the respondent/landlord did not produce him for the cross examination but, there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner had made any application for summoning the witness and the same was declined by the Rent Tribunal. Regarding the document agreement to sell alleged to have been produced by the petitioner after conclusion of the arguments, a perusal of the record, reveals that the same was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 19.11.14 by passing a detailed order, the legality whereof, is not questioned by the petitioner and the same has attained finality. 14. In view of the discussion above, the petition preferred by the petitioner, is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.