Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2790 (RAJ)

Iqbal Ali v. Sunita Khamesara

2019-11-05

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against judgment dated 21.5.19 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby the appeal being No.20/17 preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the order dated 15.2.17 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No.80/14, dismissing the petition seeking eviction, has been set aside and accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be evicted from the premises in question. 2. The respondents filed an application against the petitioners before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, seeking eviction of the petitioners from a commercial premises on the grounds of substantial damage to the premises, material alteration, subletting, reasonable & bona fide requirement and availability of alternative accommodation, in terms of the provisions of Section 9(b), (c), (e), (i) & (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. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues as under: 4. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the respondents. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal while setting aside the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, directed the respondents to vacate the premises within a period of three months and hand over its vacant possession. The order of eviction was passed on two grounds; (i) reasonable and bona fide requirement and (ii) the tenant acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises for his requirement. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. 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. 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 respondents 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. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding availability of alternative accommodation is also capricious and perverse. 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. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 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, on the first floor of the same building, the premises let out to the petitioners herein is available to them to carry on their business. Further, the petitioners have already acquired vacant possession of two shops in Bastiramji Ki Bari and one shop vacated by Shri Vinod Kumar and thus, adequate accommodations have become available to the petitioners for their requirement. Thus, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed no error in setting the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and allowing the petition preferred by the respondents seeking eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Thus, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed no error in setting the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and allowing the petition preferred by the respondents seeking eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. 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. 11. In the instant case, the landlord has pleaded the 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, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on the issue regarding bona fide requirement of the premises cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. 12. 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 finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal ignoring the evidence on record being ex facie erroneous, has rightly been reversed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 13. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 14. In the result, the petition fails, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.