Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1305 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. Lrs Of Satya, Narayan

2019-05-01

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 14.3.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 8.10.18 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Churu, setting aside the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Churu, dismissing the petition seeking eviction preferred by the respondent and directing eviction of the appellant from a commercial premises, stands dismissed. 2. The respondent-landlord preferred a petition seeking eviction of the appellant from a commercial premises, a shop, on the grounds specified under Section 9(d), 9(e) and 9(j) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act"). The petition was contested by the appellant by filing a reply thereto. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, Churu vide judgment and order dated 5.1.11. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents-landlord was allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 8.10.18. The writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and certificate for recovery of possession issued in pursuance thereof, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in declining to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which are ex facie capricious and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that Appellate Rent Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record in correct perspective proceeded to reverse the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal regarding sub-letting of the premises and the appellant acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for his requirement. Learned counsel submitted that Mahesh Kumar and Prabhu Dayal, who are occupying the premises, are real sons of the appellant and thus, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant has sublet the premises. Learned counsel submitted that the finding recorded regarding the appellant acquiring vacant possession of the alternative accommodation is also erroneous inasmuch as, the appellant is carrying on business in the said rented shop since 1995 and no issue in this regard was ever raised by the respondent during all these years. Learned counsel submitted that the finding recorded regarding the appellant acquiring vacant possession of the alternative accommodation is also erroneous inasmuch as, the appellant is carrying on business in the said rented shop since 1995 and no issue in this regard was ever raised by the respondent during all these years. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant's business is joint Hindu family business and he has not started any new business individually and thus, finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal ignoring the evidence on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, the premises was let out by the respondent-landlord to the appellant herein. There is nothing on record suggesting that the premises was let out to the joint family of the appellant or he was carrying on joint family business in the disputed shop. It has come on record that the appellant has parted with the possession of the disputed shop wherein his son Mahesh Kumar is carrying on business in the name of M/s. Mahesh Kumar Prabhu Dayal, a proprietorship concern. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant has parted with the possession of whole of the premises, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. 6. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has acquired the possession of yet another shop situated at Johari Sagar Talab, which is 100 ft. away from the disputed premises wherein, he is carrying on business in the name of M/s. Sawarmal Mahesh Kumar, a proprietorship concern. Apparently, the appellant and his son are carrying on business independently as proprietor in two different shops; the appellant's son is carrying on business in the disputed premises whereas, the appellant is doing his business in yet another premises acquired by him. 7. In view of the discussion above, the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record remain findings of facts and thus, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the same in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 9. 8. No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 9. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed.