Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2429 (RAJ)

Lal Chand Chhipa v. Rent Tribunal, Bikaner

2019-09-11

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 15.10.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No.213/15, whereby two applications preferred by the petitioners; one under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') and another under Order VI Rule 7 CPC, seeking leave to amend the reply have been dismissed. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioners from commercial premises, a shop, situated at Outside Kote Gate, Near Railway Gate, Bikaner, on the ground of bonafide requirement of his son Somesh Modi. 3. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. In the reply filed, the petitioner has taken the stand that the respondent got vacated a shop occupied by the tenant Ram Dayal and Radha Kishan Gehlot for bonafide requirement of his son Dinesh Kumar for doing hosiery business therein, however, after receiving the vacant possession, the same was not used for the purpose it was got vacated and the same was let out to one Shri Kishan Modi s/o Shri Brij Ratan Modi. It was averred that Somesh Modi is presently carrying on business of Ghee in a shop situated in Bada Bazar, Bikaner and thus, the requirement of the premises as pleaded is not bonafide. 4. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners preferred two applications as aforesaid, which have been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal after due consideration by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that by way of application under Order VIII Rule 1(3), the petitioners prayed for taking two documents on record; the letter received from Department of Income Tax, declining to furnish the information to the petitioners regarding the PAN number and Income Tax Return filed on behalf of Somesh Kumar Modi and the license issued in favour of Dinesh Kumar Modi by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Biakner. It is submitted that the said documents are necessary to be taken on record so as to establish that Shri Somesh Kumar Modi is not unemployed person and the requirement of the premises as pleaded by the respondent is not bonafide. It is submitted that necessary averments in regard to documents sought to be produced are also required to be incorporated in the reply to the petition. It is submitted that necessary averments in regard to documents sought to be produced are also required to be incorporated in the reply to the petition. Thus, the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners as aforesaid. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the bonafide requirement of the premises is pleaded by the petitioner for his son Somesh Kumar Modi and thus, the factum of petitioner's another son carrying on business at a different place is not at all relevant. It is submitted that as a matter of fact no shop is allotted to the petitioner's son in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, (Foodgrain), Bikaner and he is not carrying on business in the name of M/s Shri Om Traders. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a certificate dated 8.3.17 issued by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bikaner. Learned counsel submitted that the letter alleged to have been issued by the Department of Income Tax, declining the information sought by the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's son Somesh Kumar Modi is in no manner indicative of the fact that the requirement of the premises as pleaded, is not bonafide and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the applications. 7. It is noticed that the petition filed before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of the tenant from a rented premises, as mandated by sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, is required to be decided after holding summary inquiry as deem necessary by the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal is not required to enter into roving inquiry into ancillary facts not germane to the controversy involved in the petition. 8. It is not disputed that the respondent has pleaded bonafide requirement of the premises for his son Somesh Kumar Modi and thus, another son of the respondent-landlord, Dinesh Kumar carrying on business at some other place is hardly of any relevance. If the vacant possession is acquired by the respondentlandlord of a shop for bonafide requirement of Shri Dinesh Kumar and the same is not used for the purpose it was got vacated, has any bearing in the matter, the same will be appropriately looked into by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the petition. If the vacant possession is acquired by the respondentlandlord of a shop for bonafide requirement of Shri Dinesh Kumar and the same is not used for the purpose it was got vacated, has any bearing in the matter, the same will be appropriately looked into by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the petition. But in any case, the document regarding Dinesh Kumar carrying on business in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bikaner, has no relevance to the dispute involved in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. Moreover, the certificate issued by Secretary, KUMS, Bikaner, indicates that the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner on the strength of the document as alleged is not correct. 9. On the basis of the letter alleged to have been issued by the Department of Income Tax, declining to furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner regarding the PAN Number and Income Tax Return, if any filed by Somesh Kumar Modi, no inference can be drawn regarding his being engaged in any business elsewhere. 10. It appears that the aforesaid applications were preferred by the petitioner just to delay the proceedings pending before the Rent Tribunal. 11. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed with costs Rs.3,000/-.