Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1614 (RAJ)

Sushil Kumar v. Chiranjilal

2022-05-17

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby the application preferred by the respondents was allowed and a decree for eviction was passed against the petitioner. The order dated 08.11.2012 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same has been rejected vide order dated 09.01.2019. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner being a tenant of the respondent's shop is enjoying the suit property since the year 1990. The respondents preferred an application before the Rent Tribunal in the year 2007 for getting the shop vacated and for handing over the peaceful possession of the same to the respondents. The learned Rent Tribunal framed issues and after discussion on each issue, recorded the findings on Issue Nos. 3 & 4 against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the findings of the Rent Tribunal on Issue No. 3 & 4 on the ground that the alteration which has taken place in the suit premises cannot come within the definition of 'material alteration' and therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal committed an error while recording the findings against the petitioner on these two issues. He submits that in the suit premises i.e. shop, the petitioner has changed the floor by putting the glazed tiles and got installed an Air Conditioner. He further submits that it has enhanced the value of the suit property and has rather consolidated the premises in a better way. He, therefore, submits that the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal on Issue No. 3 & 4 is perverse and it committed an error by passing an order of eviction in this case. 5. Learned counsel further submits that even the Appellate Rent Tribunal has not appreciated the contentions raised before it and affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal on Issue Nos. 3 & 4. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition may be allowed and the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal may be quashed and set aside. 6. 3 & 4. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition may be allowed and the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal may be quashed and set aside. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments :- 1. Om Pal V/s. Anand Swaroop ::- 1988 SCC(4)545 2. Smt. Supyar Bai V/s. Smt. Gordhan Bai through her L.Rs.:: S.B.Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1989 3. Amar Singh V/s. Sheetal Prasad through L.Rs.:: 2010(3) RLW 2571 (Raj.) 4. Om Prakash Vs. Amar Singh :: 1987 (1) RCJ 629 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that that findings of the fact recorded by the Rent Tribunal on Issue Nos. 3 & 4 is perfectly justified as it has come on record that besides the changing of the floor and installing an Air Conditioner, the petitioner had also affixed furniture and damaged the walls of the shop and, therefore, the same falls in the definition of 'material alteration'. Thus, the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal are just, proper and correct. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has taken into consideration the contentions raised before it and has reiterated the fact that affixing of the furniture and damaging the walls of the shop does constitute the material alteration of the shop in the present case. He, therefore submits that no infirmity has been committed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. He prays that the present writ petition is baseless and in view of the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the courts below, there is no material before this court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach to a different conclusion. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case as well as the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 10. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case as well as the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 10. The findings of the fact recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal on Issue No. 3 & 4 is to the effect that besides affixing the glazed tiles on the floor and installing the Air Conditioner, the petitioner also affixed/placed furniture damaging the walls of the shop and after a detailed discussion, learned Rent Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the construction activities undertaken by the petitioner in the suit property amounts to the material alteration of the shop which resulted into damage of the suit property. For better appreciation of the facts, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal are reproduced as under:- 11. Similarly, it is noted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal also considered the submissions made before it and rightly observed that the damage caused by the petitioner by affixing the furniture and damaging the walls in the suit property comes within the definition of 'material alteration' and, therefore, it cannot be said that merely installing the Air Conditioner and changing the floor amounts to the beautification of the shop. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal are also reproduced as under:- 12. This court finds that the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the courts below are perfectly justified and does not call for any interference. Much less, there is no evidence or document has been produced before this court showing that the finding arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal are perverse and are not in consonance with the evidence produced before it. 13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the present case and are distinguishable on facts as there is a categorical finding of the courts below that the walls of the suit property i.e. shop have been damaged by affixing the furniture in the same. 14. In view of the discussions made above, there is no force in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. The stay application as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.