Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 27 (RAJ)

Raj Kumar Rangwani S/o Hariram Rangwani v. Kalpana Vyas W/o Devendra Kumar Vyas

2018-01-02

M.N.BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 12th February, 2015 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Kota. 2. It is a case where an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) was filed to seek eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises on personal bona-fide necessity. The application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal finding sufficient accommodation with the respondent thus a case of personal bona-fide necessity was not found. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. It was allowed finding case of personal bona-fide necessity. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent is having sufficient property for her residential as well as commercial use yet appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal ignoring the evidence on record. The respondent got eviction of the part of property in question from Mittal Trading Company as well as Dr. Sachdeva. 4. The Rent Appellate Tribunal failed to consider as to how much accommodation is possessed by the respondent and why it is not sufficient for her so as to make out a case for personal bona-fide necessity. The respondent is having one ancestral house apart from a house 1-Gha in Sabarmati area and then purchased the rented property. The applications under Section 9 of the Act of2001 against other tenants were decided in favour of the respondent and possession of two portions was taken by her. The portions vacated by Mittal Trading Company and Dr. Sachdeva were sufficient for commercial as well as residential use. The another residential accommodation also exists with the respondent. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has considered the issue but failed to describe as to how much accommodation is possessed by the respondent. When a person is having three properties then cannot be said to be in personal bona-fide necessity. It is more so when plea taken by the respondent regarding alternative accommodation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal and finding thereupon was upheld by the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The prayer is, accordingly, to set set-aside the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal while maintaining the order passed by the Rent Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the petition. He submits that respondent purchased the property in dispute for residential as well as commercial use. The prayer is, accordingly, to set set-aside the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal while maintaining the order passed by the Rent Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the petition. He submits that respondent purchased the property in dispute for residential as well as commercial use. The back portion of the property is in possession of the petitioner and unless it is vacated, she cannot use it for residential as well as commercial use. The other properties are not suitable for the respondent, rather, she cannot have residential and commercial use at one place in those properties thus the Rent Appellate Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent. The order may accordingly be maintained. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal finding no case of personal bona-fide necessity. It found that respondent is having other properties apart from two portions of the property in dispute vacated during pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 or prior to it, thus in her possession, the accommodation vacated by Mittal Trading Company has been used for commercial purpose, whereas, property vacated by Dr. Sachdeva is sufficient for residential purpose. The Rent Appellate Tribunal reversed the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal but no reason has been given other than to hold that landlord is having liberty to use the property as per her desire. It is by ignoring as to whether case of personal bona-fide necessity is made out or not. The Rent Appellate Tribunal was expected to first decide the issue as to whether respondent is having personal bona-fide necessity of the rented property. The perusal of the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal does not show finding on the aforesaid while reversing the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal. Out of the property purchased by the respondent, two portions were got vacated. The Rent Appellate Tribunal has not recorded finding that portions possessed by the respondent are not sufficient for her use i.e. for residential and commercial purpose and even if possession on the other property is ignored i.e. one purchased by her in Sabarmati area and other the ancestral property. 8. The Rent Appellate Tribunal has not recorded finding that portions possessed by the respondent are not sufficient for her use i.e. for residential and commercial purpose and even if possession on the other property is ignored i.e. one purchased by her in Sabarmati area and other the ancestral property. 8. Taking into consideration the fact aforesaid, I do not find any reason for Rent Appellate Tribunal for setting aside the order of the Rent Tribunal. The perusal of the impugned order shows a casual approach of the Rent Appellate Tribunal in reversing the finding of the Rent Tribunal, that too, without going into the issue of personal bona-fide necessity. The Rent Appellate Tribunal was expected to first decide the issue as to whether respondent is having personal bona-fide necessity or not. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal is set aside. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.