Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2641 (RAJ)

Bheemraj Chhajer v. Lrs Of Premaram Suthar

2022-10-19

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. A challenge has been made by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ’tenant’), to judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur as affirmed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan on 23.09.2016. By the judgment dated 13.11.2014, Rent Tribunal directed that the tenant was liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises. It was further held that the landlords were entitled for revised rent at the rate of Rs. 2,300/- from the date of filing of the eviction petition. Further, the petitioner was directed to handover possession to the respondent-landlords within six months, failing which he would be liable to pay three times contracted rent in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. 2. It is noticed that during the pendency of present writ petition, an application was filed on behalf of Kailash Bhati and Laxman Bhati (subsequent purchasers) and vide order dated 22.01.2020 passed by this Court, they were impleaded as party respondents in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act was filed by the landlord for his personal and bonafide need of the subject property with an assertion that his son namely Rajendra would establish a factory of wooden furniture. He submits that the subject property has been sold to Kailash Bhati and Laxman Bhati during the pendency of petition, therefore, personal need of the original landlord no longer survives and in this view of the matter, the judgments dated 13.11.2014 and 23.09.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed for the aforesaid contentions on the judgments passed in the cases of M/s. Martin & Harris (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Prem Chand reported in 1996(3) WLC 461 and Wg.Com.H.K. Lal Vs. Satish Chand (Dr.) reported in 1996 (3) RLW 20. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the judgment of the tribunal is very limited. Grounds of perversity, misdirection in law, manifest injustice or misuse of jurisdiction have to be made out for indulgence. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the judgment of the tribunal is very limited. Grounds of perversity, misdirection in law, manifest injustice or misuse of jurisdiction have to be made out for indulgence. He further submits that the courts below in the judgments impugned after appreciation of the evidence in apropos manner reached to a definite conclusion with regard to bona fide necessity and personal need of the original landlord, therefore, the findings are not required to be interfered with by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court in the case of Naresh Chandra Vs. Smt. Premlata Bakshi reported in 2009 (1) BNJ 423 held that bona fide need of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of suit has to be established and same continues even after death of persons for whose need the eviction was sought and even after the suit property is sold to a third party during the pendency of lis. 7. In the case of Abdul Rehman & Ors. Vs. Harish Kumar & Ors. (S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No.198/2003) a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reiterated a similar view. The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the judgments and decrees of the courts below and the judgment cited at bar by the learned counsels for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned courts below for granting eviction decree do not require any interference by this Court in the present second appeal and, therefore, the same deserve to be upheld and the substantital questions of law framed by a coordinate bench of this Court, deserve to be answered in favour of plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/appellants. The legal position with regard to bona fide and reasonable need of the land is no more res-integra and the landlord is the best judge of his/her business needs and neither the defendant/tenant can dictate terms in this regard and nor the court can substitute the its own opinion of the landlord. There is no contrary evidence or material available on record. There is no contrary evidence or material available on record. Both the courts below after considering the evidence led by the parties, have concurrently granted eviction decree in favour of plaintiff/landlord, which in the present second appeal is not required to be up set and same deserves to be upheld." 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of landlord for bona fide necessity of the tenanted premises remains uncontroverted, unrebutted and unshaken. This Court does not find any perversity or misdirection of law in orders impugned, recording findings regarding bona fide necessity of the landlord. The conclusions with regard to bona fide and reasonable necessity are based on evidence placed record which were duly considered by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Merely because the tenanted property had been sold during the pendency of the present petition, the findings recorded by Rent Tribunal as affirmed by Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be disturbed as the bona fide need of the landlord on the date of filing of suit had been established. 9. It is a settled law that power of the judicial superintendence under Article 227 cannot be used to upset conclusions of fact, however erroneous they may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse and so unreasonable that no court could have ever reached them. 10. In the result, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, interfering with the judgments dated 13.11.2014 and 23.09.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.