Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1136 (RAJ)

Durgadass S/o Shri Gopaldass Dhobi v. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur

2017-05-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against judgment and order dated 23.04.2016 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan and judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby, the petition for eviction filed by respondent-landlord has been accepted and the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant has been dismissed, respectively. 2. The respondent-landlord filed petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from Shop No.5, inter alia, with the averments that Shop No.5 ad measuring 10x20 ft. is in possession of the petitioner as tenant - situated at Plot No.205. The plot has five shops, Shop No.3 is vacant and rest of the three shops are in possession of different tenants. On the back of the said plot, Plot No.205A owned by landlord's wife is situated and the landlord by clubbing both the lands wants to open his own Hospital and provide for indoor and outdoor facilities, set up modern machines so as to utilize his own and his wife's abilities. Further, proceedings for eviction of other three tenants from Shop Nos.1, 2 and 4 for similar requirement have already been filed, indicating the above reasonable and bona fide necessity and alleging that the shop in question was not fit for human inhabitation, the eviction of the petitioner tenant was sought. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioner by filing reply. The averments contained in the petition were denied. It was denied that the respondent has reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises, for which, he was seeking eviction of the petitioner and tenants from three other shops. It was submitted that the landlord and his wife, as Doctors, were engaged in profession for last many years and were earning a huge sum, the landlord was a rich Doctor and was operating a Hospital on the plot next to the suit property, wherein, indoor and outdoor facilities along with modern machines were available. The Hospital was four storied and is on a big plot of land, which is being operated by landlord and his wife, wherein, his abilities are being fully utilized and, therefore, the plea raised in the present petition was baseless. 4. The Hospital was four storied and is on a big plot of land, which is being operated by landlord and his wife, wherein, his abilities are being fully utilized and, therefore, the plea raised in the present petition was baseless. 4. It was further submitted that on the plot owned by landlord's wife ad measuring 60x70 ft., the landlord could have easily raised construction and for the said purpose there was no requirement to get the shops vacated. The allegations made regarding the property being not fit for human inhabitation were also denied. A replication was filed by the landlord to the reply filed by the petitioner-tenant, wherein, it was claimed that the Bhandari Hospital belongs to a Private Limited Company and the landlord and his wife were working there as Consultants and it was reiterated that the suit premises were required for opening a Hospital by clubbing the Plot Nos.205 and 205A for utilizing the expertise of the respondent-landlord and his wife appropriately. 5. On behalf of the respondent landlord - three witnesses were examined and on behalf of petitioner tenant - two witnesses were examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the Rent Tribunal came to the conclusion that the landlord has established his reasonable and bona fide requirement. The issue pertaining to premises being not fit for human inhabitation was not pressed and, consequently, the petition was allowed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 8. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties reiterated the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal and negated the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the premises were required reasonably and bona fidely by the landlord. It was submitted that the respondent-landlord, in the petition filed for eviction, concealed the fact that they were already having a four storied Hospital with indoor and outdoor facilities along with modern equipments and as the said suppression was deliberate, the requirement cannot be said to be bona fide and, therefore, the finding deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that in the cross-examination the landlord Dr. It was submitted that in the cross-examination the landlord Dr. Surendra Bhandari admitted that he was Chairman of the Bhandari Hospital and his wife was Managing Director, which is sufficient to establish that there already exists a sufficient facility for the landlord to work and, therefore, the plea raised regarding requirement of the premises for setting up of a Hospital is baseless and the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. However, both the Tribunals without considering the said material aspect of the matter, allowed the petition and rejected the appeal, which judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside. 10. Reliance was placed on judgment of The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Smt. Nirmala & Anr. : 2009 (2) WLC 126 . 11. Learned counsel appearing on caveat vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that there was no suppression at all as alleged by the petitioner in the petition, inasmuch as, the landlord at no stage claimed that he was not working anywhere and the said aspect about existence of Bhandari Hospital was clearly answered by way of filing replication and, therefore, the allegations regarding suppression have no substance. Both the Tribunals below have concurrently held the requirements of landlord as reasonable and bona fide and the same does not call for any interference. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. The averments made in the petition seeking eviction were specific, wherein, the respondent-landlord sought eviction of the petitioner and indicated that he has filed similar petitions against three other tenants for the purpose of setting up a Hospital having indoor and outdoor facilities and for setting up the modern machines, wherein, the land in question would be required, which he would club with the Plot No.205A belonging to his wife situated at the back of Plot No.205 and make the facilities available. 14. 14. When the respondent in the reply pointed out about the existence of the Hospital on the plot next to the suit property and the fact that the landlord was already working therein, a rejoinder was filed by the landlord indicating that the Hospital belongs to a Private Limited Company and he along with his wife were working therein and wants to open their own Hospital and the location of the plot was appropriate. It was also indicated that the landlord was not able to utilize his abilities fully and the income, which he can generate, he was not able to generate for lack of his own Hospital. Where after when evidence was led by the parties, the landlord in cross-examination though reiterated that the Hospital belongs to a Private Limited Company, admitted that he himself was the Chairman of the Company and his wife was the Managing Director. 15. The entire emphasis laid by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding alleged suppression of the fact that the landlord was already engaged in Bhandari Hospital and, therefore, the petition filed for eviction was not bona fide, is without any basis and cannot be accepted. 16. As already noticed hereinbefore, it was nowhere the case of the respondent-landlord that he was unemployed and that he was not engaged anywhere, the plea specifically was that he wanted to setup his own Hospital for utilizing his abilities along with his wife and, in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent-landlord suppressed any aspect of the matter from the Court, which could have any implication on the outcome of the present proceedings or render the requirement as mala fide/not bona fide. 17. The fact that in the Bhandari Hospital, which is owned by a Private Limited Company, wherein, the landlord is the Chairman and his wife is the Managing Director, by itself is not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the attempt on the part of the landlord in seeking to setup a Hospital along with his wife on the land in question for further utilizing their abilities as Doctors and augment their income, which is not reasonable or bona fide so as to come to a conclusion that the shop in question ad measuring 10x20 ft. was being got vacated for any mala fide reason. was being got vacated for any mala fide reason. Though the petitioner only made allegations about existence of some alternative land also, the same was not proved. 18. So far as judgment in the case of Smt. Nirmala (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the said case, a specific averment was made in the petition that no alternative accommodation was available to the landlord, which in evidence was proved to be incorrect and, in those circumstances, it was laid down that suppression in this regard would render the requirement as not bona fide. 19. In the present case, the fact situation had already come on record by way of replication filed by the landlord, the same being part of pleadings, and as already noticed hereinbefore, no averments made in the petition have been shown to be false and, therefore, the entire submissions, as made hereinbefore, are of no avail. 20. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after dealing with all the submissions made by the petitioner has reached to a conclusion that a professionally qualified person if wants to open a modern Hospital for utilizing his abilities, the same would fall within his requirement and it cannot be said that the same is not bona fide. 21. Further both the Tribunals after dealing with all the other related aspects of the matter have concurrently reached a finding of fact that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by both the Tribunals below. In view thereof, no case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.