Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2195 (RAJ)

Sharad Kumar v. Krishan Kumar

2017-10-12

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') to the judgment dated 21-4-2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Bharatpur (for short, 'Appellate Tribunal" in Appeal No. 32/2006 (CIS No. 71/2014) partly allowing the respondent-landlords' (hereafter 'the landlord') appeal, but reversing the judgment dated 15-11-2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal Bharatpur and directing his eviction from the tenanted premises on the ground of the landldord's bona fide and reasonable necessity. 2. Heard counsel for the contesting parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Tribunal. 3. Shri Krishna Verma appearing for the tenant submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal that the landlord did not have bona fide and reasonable necessity leading to dismissal of the eviction petition was well considered, and therefore the Appellate Rent Tribunal had no occasion to interfere therewith. He submitted that from the evidence before the Rent Tribunal it was established that a shop rented by the Hindu Joint Family to which the landlord and his son Madan Mohan belonged was being used by it and Madan Mohan's requirement of doing business as propounded in his petition by the landlord would be satisfied by his engaging in the continuing joint family business from the said rented shop. It was submitted that the lack of bona fides of the landlord in seeking the tenant's eviction was also apparent from the fact that earlier the landlord had propounded his own bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop but had failed with the said eviction petition being dismissed in 1991. Subsequently a second eviction petition putting forth the landlord's brother's bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop was also dismissed. Mr. Krishna Verma, counsel for the tenant submitted that in the aforesaid factual backdrop, the landlord's 3rd eviction petition (from which this petition arises) for the purported bona fide and reasonable necessity of his son's business was only in pursuit of the original intent since 1991 to somehow get the tenanted shop vacated. Such an eviction petition should have thus been seen through on an active consideration of the history of the tenancy and dismissed. 4. Mr. Such an eviction petition should have thus been seen through on an active consideration of the history of the tenancy and dismissed. 4. Mr. Krishna Verma submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal overlooked the well reasoned judgment of the Rent Tribunal dismissing the eviction petition and without due regard to the detailed judgment and articulate reasoning of the Rent Tribunal set aside its order without good cause as if the original court on the ground of the landlord's bona fide and reasonable need and directed the tenant's eviction. Hence this petition. 5. Mr. D.C. Gupta, appearing for the landlord submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal with regard to the landlord not having a bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop was vitiated by misreading of the evidence on record, in fact perverse and also unsustainable for a misdirection law. The Rent Tribunal oddly came to a finding that the Madan Mohan the landlord's son could join the joint family business from a shop rented by the joint family instead of seeking to set up his own independent business from the tenanted shop. Mr. D.C. Gupta submitted that it is well settled that it is neither for the tenant nor even for the courts to say how a landlord's bona fide and reasonable necessity can be best satisfied. The choice lies unquestionably with the landlord once it is found that a bona fide and reasonable necessity propounded by the landlord is made out from the evidence on record. Mr. D.C. Gupta submitted that the son of the landlord is admittedly unemployed. He needs the suit shop for doing business separately. The suit shop was given on rent by the landlord to the tenant vide rent deed Ex.-A/3. Assuming that the purported ownership thereof lies with the joint Hindu Family property, the landlord-tenant relationship was not in dispute with rent admittedly being paid by the tenant to the landlord. Mr. D.C. Gupta submitted that it was not stated by the tenant that the son of the landlord Madan Mohan was incapable of doing business or otherwise gainfully engaged in an activity for which the tenanted shop would not be required. Rather from the evidence of the tenant was not proved that the landlord had any shop other than the tenanted one from which his son's bona fide and reasonable necessity could be satisfied. Rather from the evidence of the tenant was not proved that the landlord had any shop other than the tenanted one from which his son's bona fide and reasonable necessity could be satisfied. It was submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal is the final court of fact and had jurisdiction to interfere with and upset the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, on a view of the evidence indicating that the Rent Tribunal's finding was not supported by the evidence on record. Mr. D.C. Gupta submitted that albeit the landlord belonged to a family substantially well off but joint Hindu family properties could not be interpolated with the rights of the landlord to whom the tenant was admittedly paying rent. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has discussed the issue of the landlord's son reasonable and bona fide necessity in great detail and held that the tenant could not dictate the landlord how best to satisfy the bona fide and reasonable necessity propounded - as the landlord is the best judge of his necessity. If the landlord wanted to facilitate his son's independent business for which the tenanted shop, there was no legal embargo in seeking the tenant's eviction. The finding of the Appellate Rent Tribunal is based on objective consideration of the evidence on record, submitted by Mr. D.C. Gupta. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Yadvendra Arya and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta [AIR 2008 Supreme Court 773], wherein the landlord was not wanting to join business along with his father but to do independent business from the tenanted premises and yet direction was given to vacate the tenanted shop. 6. Heard. 7. Considered. 8. A perusal of the judgment of the Rent Tribunal indicates that it negated the reasonable necessity of the landlord for his son's requirement for the tenanted shop on the sole ground that it was a joint Hindu family property and also if the landlord's son wanted to do business, he would not wait till vacation of the tenanted premises but instead could have taken another shop on rent for the purpose. The said reason for holding that the landlord did not require the shop reasonably and bona fide for his son's business is clearly perverse. The said reason for holding that the landlord did not require the shop reasonably and bona fide for his son's business is clearly perverse. So was the Rent Tribunal's view that if the landlord's son indeed wanted to do business he was free to join the joint family business from a shop taken on rent by them. The son of the landlord is admittedly a major and the landlord required the tenanted shop for the son's business need. No infirmity can reasonably be inferred in the said bona fide and reasonable need. The Tribunal could not hold that the son of the landlord could take the shop on rent for his business. The Rent Tribunal's view was in the cross-hair of the dictum that the landlord is the best Judge as to how his bona fide and reasonable necessity could be satisfied. In the circumstances, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has correctly interfered with the perverse conclusions of the Rent Tribunal and on appreciation of the evidence on record wholly within its jurisdiction rightly held that there was a reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord with regard to the tenanted shop for his son's business. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Arumugham v. Sundarambal [JT 1999(4) SC 464] has held that it is open for the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence of one side and rejecting the evidence of the other. Thus the First Appellate Rent Tribunal as the final court of fact committed no illegality in reversing the judgment of the Rent Tribunal. 10. I am of the considered view that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal with regard to the landlord's reasonable and bona fide necessity for the shop in issue for his son's business is rock solid, founded as it is on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. No argument pertaining to the issue of revision of rent was raised. 12. In summation, it is held that counsel for the tenant could not make out a case of the impugned judgment dated 21-4-2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law. 11. No argument pertaining to the issue of revision of rent was raised. 12. In summation, it is held that counsel for the tenant could not make out a case of the impugned judgment dated 21-4-2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law. In fact the findings of fact by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as the final court of fact with regard to the landlord's bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop is based on objective consideration of the evidence on record which cannot be reviewed or reweighed by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as in an appeal, as was sought by the counsel for the tenant. 13. There is no force in the petition. It is dismissed.