Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1448 (RAJ)

HARISH BALECHA v. VIKAS KUMAR BAMB

2017-07-03

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. This petition has been filed by the non applicant-petitioner challenging the judgment dated 31.1.2017 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan affirming the judgment dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants-non petitioners (hereinafter 'the applicant') filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 2001 Act') against the non applicant-petitioner (hereinafter the 'non-applicant') stating that the shop in question was rented out to the non applicant by the erstwhile owner Prabhu Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- per month. On the death of Prabhu Lal, Smt. Padma Devi and son Vinod Kumar the successors of Prabhu Lal sold the house including the tenanted shop in question to Rameshwar Kumawat vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.2005. Thereafter, the said house including the shop in question and another shop was purchased by the applicants from Rameshwar Kumawat, vide registered sale deed dated 7.4.2006. On purchasing the house including the shop in question, the applicants informed the non applicant-respondent that rent thereof be paid to them. Yet despite the attornment the non applicant did not pay the monthly rent of the shop in question to the applicants and commenced default. 2. The applicants then filed the eviction application on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity and default in payment of monthly rent. On service of the notice the non applicant filed a reply of denial. The title of the landlord was denied as was the alleged attornment of the tenant premises by the applicant. It was submitted that the rent was being paid to the legal representatives of late Prabhu Lal, the lawful landlords and hence no default in payment of rent could be made out. In the alternative all the applicants were stated to be in the jewellery business in Jaipur and therefore, having no bonafide and reasonable necessity of the shop in question. The maintainability of the eviction petition without impleading four daughters of late Prabhu Lal namely Leela, Sita, Kanchan and Poonam, purportedly necessary parties was also questioned. 3. The non applicants in their rejoinder negated the reply and the averments therein. All defences in the reply were stated to be false and founded on forged receipts of rent purportedly issued by the "landlord". 4. 3. The non applicants in their rejoinder negated the reply and the averments therein. All defences in the reply were stated to be false and founded on forged receipts of rent purportedly issued by the "landlord". 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal struck 4 issues. 5. Having perused the evidence on record the Rent Tribunal on the basis of Ex.-13, the registered sale deed with regard to the property in question executed by Padma Devi and Vinod Kumar successors of Prabhu Lal the erstwhile landlord in favour of Rameshwar Kumawat, and the registered sale deed subsequently extended by Rameshwar Kumawat in favour of the applicants found applicants to be the landlords. In view of the attornment of the tenancy under notice to the tenants, relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the non-applicant was also found. 6. With regard to the issue of default in payment of rent, the Rent Tribunal found that despite a statutory notice demanding arrears of over four months due rent and bank accounts conveyed by the landlord for deposit thereof, no deposit was made entailing a case of default against the non-applicant rendering them liable for eviction. It was so directed from the date of passing the order. Arrears of Rent @ Rs. 650/- per month were also directed to be paid for 36 months. 7. Aggrieved by the Rent Tribunal's judgment, the non applicant preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Rent Appellate Tribunal having analyzed the matter ad-longem, arrived at the conclusion that no evidence was produced by the non applicant-petitioner to the effect that late Prabhu Lal had four daughters namely Leela, Sita, Kanchan and Poonam aside of his widow Smt. Padma and son Vinod. The case of the tenant of the four daughters of Prabhu Lal was disbelieved for complete lack of evidence. It was also observed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal that no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the non applicant as against the applicant's on the issue of the bonafide and reasonable necessity of doing jewellery business from the shop in question. The evidence of Vikas PW-1 remained un-rebutted who was married and had a disabled daughter. His need for a business was pressing and imperative. In this view of the matter, the necessity of the applicant was found to be fully proved. The evidence of Vikas PW-1 remained un-rebutted who was married and had a disabled daughter. His need for a business was pressing and imperative. In this view of the matter, the necessity of the applicant was found to be fully proved. However the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal qua the tenant's eviction order on the ground of default in payment of rent was not found to be sustainable by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same was set-aside. The appeal was however dismissed on the ground of the landlord's bonafide and reasonable need for the tenanted premises being made out. 8. Hence this petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record. I am of the view that the findings arrived at by the Tribunals on the issue of the landlord's bonafide and reasonable necessity are based on the objective consideration of the evidence on record. The findings are not even remotely perverse. Contrarily they are the only plausible ones on the evidence on record. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra [1997 (1) SCC 133] has held that the result of a trial is determined by a weighing of the totality of facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the presumptions operating in favour of one party or those against it, which tilt the balance of the trial in favour of one of the contesting parties. 11. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the shop in question was first let out by late Prabhu Lal upon a monthly rent of Rs. 650/. The ownership of the shop was upon the landlord's death transferred by his widow and son's to one Rameshwar. The said sale deed was never put to challenge by any interested party before a Competent Civil Court. Rameshwar thence sold the property to the applicants under registered sale deed dated 27.10.2005. The applicants by notice the tenants thereupon attorned the tenancy as owners. Landlord-tenant relationship thereupon, obtained between the applicant and non-applicants qua the tenanted property. 12. The said sale deed was never put to challenge by any interested party before a Competent Civil Court. Rameshwar thence sold the property to the applicants under registered sale deed dated 27.10.2005. The applicants by notice the tenants thereupon attorned the tenancy as owners. Landlord-tenant relationship thereupon, obtained between the applicant and non-applicants qua the tenanted property. 12. So far as the personal and bonafide necessity of the applicant is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangi Lal v. Nana Saheb reported in 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases (SC) page 102, has held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not - It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and place of the business. 13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, in my view, both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgment and arrived at a just conclusion-on the landlord's bonafide and reasonably necessity, which does not deserve interference with in the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India exercisable as it is only in situations of issue of jurisdiction, lack/ excess or failure to exercise, ex-facie perversity, patent illegality or non-application of mind leading to manifest in justice. No such situation obtains in the facts of the case. 14. The writ petition filed by the petitioner being bereft of any substance is hereby dismissed. 15. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.