Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2784 (RAJ)

Iqbal Ali v. Balwant Singh

2019-11-05

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. These petitions are directed against judgment dated 21.5.2019 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby the appeal being No. 18/17 preferred by the respondent has been allowed. The Appeal No. 19/17 preferred by the petitioners herein, has been dismissed and the order dated 15.2.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No. 79/14 directing eviction of the petitioners from a commercial premises, has been affirmed. 2. The respondent filed an application against the petitioners before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, seeking eviction of the petitioners from a commercial premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent, material alteration, subletting, reasonable and bona-fide requirement and availability of alternative accommodation, in terms of the provisions of Section 9(a), (b), (c), (e), (i) and (j) respectively of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"). The petitioners contested the application by filing a reply thereto. The respondent filed a rejoinder to the reply. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues as under: ^^1- vk;k ÁR;FkhZ us oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k 1760@& :i;s ds LFkku ij 1708@& :i;k vFkkZr~ 52@& :i, Áfr ekg de tek djk, gS vkSj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa 4 ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k dh pwd dj nh gSA bl vk/kkj ij ÁkFkhZ] ÁR;FkhZ ls oknxzLr ifjlj dk [kkyh dCtk ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & ÁkFkhZ 2- vk;k ÁR;FkhZ us ÁkFkZuki= ds iSjk la[;k 10¼2½ ds vuqlkj ÁkFkhZ dh lgefr ds fcuk mlesa rksM+QksM dj LFkk;h :i ls lkjHkwr ifjorZu dj fn;k gS\ ;fn gka rks bldk ÁHkko\ & ÁkFkhZ 3- vk;k ÁR;FkhZ us oknxzLr ifjlj dks mi&fdjksnkjh ij fjpyqd QS'ku dEiuh dks ns fn;k gS\ ;fn gka rks bldk ÁHkko\ & ÁkFkhZ 4- vk;k oknxzLr ifjlj dh ÁkFkhZ dks mlds iq= euh"k [kesljk o iq=o/kq euh"kk [kesljk ds lhŒ,Œ dh ÁsfDVl gsrq ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko';drk gS\ 5- vk;k ÁR;FkhZ us viuh vko';drk ds fy, i;kZIr ,oa mi;qDr ifjlj vftZr dj fy;k gS\ ;fn gka rks bldk ÁHkko\ & ÁkFkhZ 6- vuqrks"k\** The parties led their evidence. 4. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal decided the issue regarding default in payment of rent in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners. The remaining issues were decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioners. 4. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal decided the issue regarding default in payment of rent in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners. The remaining issues were decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the application filed seeking eviction was allowed on the ground of default in payment of rent. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred an appeal being No. 19/17 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The respondent filed a cross appeal being No. 18/17, assailing the findings of the Rent Tribunal on issues No. 2 to 5. The Appellate Rent Tribunal while affirming the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on issue No. 1 regarding default in payment or rent, has reversed the findings of the Rent Tribunal on issue No. 4 and 5, which relate to reasonable and bona-fide requirement and availability of alternative accommodation. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners being No. 19/17 has been dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed as aforesaid. Hence, these petitions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have seriously erred in deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioners had paid the rent due for the period of four months as demanded by the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent had served the legal notice dated 17.2.2006 upon the petitioners' father only claiming the deficit rent a sum of Rs. 52/- per month. The respondent calculated the enhanced rent of the premises in question wrongly and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal declaring the petitioners defaulter in payment of rent, is ex-facie capricious and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the findings arrived at run contrary to the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 inasmuch as, admittedly, the petitioners had not defaulted in payment of due rent for a period of four months. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of bona-fide requirement of the premises, is ex-facie perverse. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of bona-fide requirement of the premises, is ex-facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that the bona-fide requirement of the premises was pleaded by the respondent in terms that his son and daughter-in-law, who are Chartered Accountant by profession, need the premises for establishing their office whereas, it is not denied that they are presently, operating their office at the second floor of the same building. Learned counsel submitted that the facts proved make it abundantly clear that the bona-fide requirement of the premises as pleaded by the respondent is merely his desire and wish. The office of Chartered Accountant can always be operated on the first or second floor and many offices of the Chartered Accountants in the Udaipur City are being run at second floor and thus, the bona-fide requirement of the premises as pleaded by the respondent was not genuine. The petitioners are doing their garment business in the premises in question which cannot be conveniently run on the first floor or the second floor. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding availability of alternative accommodation is also capricious and perverse. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has not recorded the finding that the properties pointed out by the respondent are sufficient and appropriate for carrying on garments business, which is being run by the petitioners in the premises in question. It is also not proved that the alternative accommodations pointed out actually belong to the petitioners and thus, the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the basis of surmises and conjectures are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the landlord is the best judge for his bona-fide requirement and thus, the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of bona-fide requirement, after due examination of the evidence on record, cannot be faulted with. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the landlord is the best judge for his bona-fide requirement and thus, the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of bona-fide requirement, after due examination of the evidence on record, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioners have not paid the entire rent due for four months and thus, have committed the default in payment of rent in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001. It is submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal in this regard cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, a tenant may be evicted from the premises if he has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him from four months. Obviously, the phrase "rent due" refers to the entire rent for four months legally due, payable by the tenant to the landlord and thus, if the amount paid or tendered by the tenant pursuant to the notice sent by the landlord to the tenant is less than the amount of rent due, the tenant would be deemed to be defaulter in payment of rent and liable to be evicted from the premises. 12. In the backdrop of the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 discussed above, adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, as per provisions of Section 6, the revised rent of the premises comes to Rs. 1776/- per month whereas, the petitioners have deposited the rent of the premises a sum of Rs. 1708/- per month. It is not in dispute that despite notice being sent by the respondent-landlord to deposit deficit amount of rent, the petitioners did not care to pay or tender the amount of rent due. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of default in payment of rent by the petitioners, cannot be faulted with. 13. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue of default in payment of rent by the petitioners, cannot be faulted with. 13. Coming to the ground of reasonable and bona-fide requirement, it is true that while seeking eviction of a tenant from a rented premises on the ground in terms of Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, a landlord is required to establish that premises is required reasonably and bona-fide for own use or occupation of himself or his family members for whose benefit the premises are held. The question with regard to reasonable and bona-fide requirement of the premises in terms of Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 has to be determined by the Rent Tribunal in each case taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties in this regard. Undoubtedly, the landlord has right to manage and plan the use of the premises according to his need, which obviously includes the bona-fide requirement of the premises. It is well settled that landlord is the best judge of his necessity and tenant cannot dictate terms in this regard to the landlord. 14. In the instant case, the landlord has pleaded bona-fide requirement of the premises for establishing the office of his son and daughter-in-law who are Chartered Accountant by profession. In the considered opinion of this court, merely because the son and daughter-in-law of the landlord are operating their office at the second floor of the premises, they cannot be compelled to continue with the same indefinitely. If for the convenient operation of the office and better productivity, they intend to shift the office to the ground floor, the tenant cannot be permitted to suggest that they should continue to run their office at the second floor inasmuch as, if he is evicted from the premises, he will suffer great inconvenience. As a matter of fact, in case of eviction of the tenant from a premises on the ground of bona-fide requirement in terms of provisions of Section 9 (i) of the Act of 2001, the question of comparative hardship is not required to be gone into. As a matter of fact, in case of eviction of the tenant from a premises on the ground of bona-fide requirement in terms of provisions of Section 9 (i) of the Act of 2001, the question of comparative hardship is not required to be gone into. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on the issue regarding bona-fide requirement of the premises also cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. 15. It has come on record that on the first floor of the premises in question, suitable accommodation is available to the respondents to carry on their business. That apart, they have acquired possession of one house and two shops in Bastiramji Ki Bari. One shop vacated by Shri Vinod Kumar is also available to the petitioners. Moreover, the landlord has offered the premises on second floor for shifting of the business of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal ignoring the evidence on record being ex-facie capricious and perverse, have rightly been reversed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due examination of the material on record as aforesaid, remains findings of facts, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the discussion above, other grounds raised by the landlord in the petition filed, which are not even pressed before this Court, are not required to be gone into. 17. In the result, the petitions fail, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.