Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 409 (RAJ)

Premratan S/o Mangilal v. Ramchandra and Co.

2022-02-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer: “(1) It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (2) Quash the judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018 (annexure-6) passed by the learned appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner. (3) Any other writ or order, the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is the landlord of the property in dispute, and on count of default in payment of due rent by the respondents-tenants, despite service of notices upon them, the petitioner-landlord sought to evict the respondents-tenants on the ground of bona-fide and personal necessity, in particular. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents-tenants had also sublet the property in dispute to a third party, and therefore, eviction so sought was on valid grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord also submit that in order to enforce his right to evict the respondents-tenants from the property in question, the petitioner had filed an appropriate application before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner which ruled in petitioner's favour, vide judgment and certificate dated 02.04.2016, but however, the same was appealed against by the respondents-tenants before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bikaner, which ruled in the favour of the respondents-tenants, vide judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord also submit that the judgment so passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal was based solely on the cross examination of PW-1 Brijratan Rathi, which is unfair and unjust and thus, aggrieved by such determination, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. 1999 AIR SC 3864, Boramma vs. Krishna Gowda and Others, 2000 (4) CCC 148, Flora Elias Nahoum and Others vs. Idrish Ali Laskar, 2018 (2) CCC 496 and Ambadas Khanduji Shinde vs. Ashok Sadashiv Mamukar, 2017 (3) CCC 824. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order dated 15.03.2021 passed by this Court in Ajmal Hussain vs. Prem Ratan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/2020) whereby this Court has declined to accept the ground as raised on behalf of the petitioner therein, that since the landlord has accepted that he was paying the income tax, therefore, it cannot be inferred that there was existence of any bona-fide or personal necessity of the suit premises therein. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-tenants submits that the petitioner-landlord in fact does not have the bona-fide or personal necessity, so as to justify his claim regarding eviction of the respondents-tenants from the property in question, and the averment made by the petitioner-landlord, before the learned Rent Tribunal that his three sons are unemployed and need the property in question for residential purposes, is a falsehood as the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that each of the three sons are employed, since they were filing the necessary income tax returns. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits that the petitioner-landlord wanted to receive the enhanced rent of the property in question and that, the same was the actual reason for seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from the property in question. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits that the property in question in fact has not been sublet to any third party, and the same has also not been proved by the petitioner-landlord, in any manner whatsoever. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited above. 12. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits that the property in question in fact has not been sublet to any third party, and the same has also not been proved by the petitioner-landlord, in any manner whatsoever. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited above. 12. This Court observes that the judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, whereby it was held that the ground for eviction, more particularly, the personal and bona-fide necessity did not exist, merely on the ground that the sons of the petitioner-landlord were filing income tax returns is not sustainable in the eye of the law. Furthermore, this Court observes that this finding of the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal regarding the filing of the income tax returns, was not even substantiated by any documents or evidence brought on record before it, but the said finding was only arrived at on the sole basis of the cross examination of PW-1 Brijratan Rathi; such finding of the Rent Appellate Tribunal thus appears to be erroneous. The level of information available with the tenant was so low as is depicted in the cross examination (testimony of PW-1 Brijratan Rathi), relevant portion of which reads as follows: ^^Ásejru edku ekfyd ds fdrus yM++ds gS esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA Ásejru ds nks yM+dksa ds uke irk gSA** 13. The level of information available with the tenant was so low as is depicted in the cross examination (testimony of PW-1 Brijratan Rathi), relevant portion of which reads as follows: ^^Ásejru edku ekfyd ds fdrus yM++ds gS esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA Ásejru ds nks yM+dksa ds uke irk gSA** 13. This Court also observes the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath (supra) wherein it was held that the test of need or requirement of the landlord must not be equated to “dire or absolute or compelling necessity” in Boramma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex held that it would not be a sound rule of appreciation of evidence to pick up an answer from the cross examination of a witness and draw inference taking it in isolation; in Flora Nahoum (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if the landlord is able to make out only one ground out of the several grounds for eviction, he is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant from the suit premises on the basis of sole ground which was made out under Rent Act; and lastly in Ambadas (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that eviction of the tenant from the shop premises, on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord, so as to enable his sons to be settled and run independent businesses, was genuine. 14. This Court therefore observes that in view of the aforementioned precedential backdrop, the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal in the present case, was not a valid and sound rule of appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the pick and choose from the testimony of a witness, inspite of the fact that the same was not corroborated by any evidence. 15. Thus, in the firm opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment and certificate so passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal is not only based on a poor logic and reasoning, but is also contrary to law of the land, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 15.1. As regards the judgment and certificate passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the same correctly appreciated the evidence pertaining to the present dispute, as laid before it, while recording the finding that since one ground of eviction of the respondent-tenants viz. 15.1. As regards the judgment and certificate passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the same correctly appreciated the evidence pertaining to the present dispute, as laid before it, while recording the finding that since one ground of eviction of the respondent-tenants viz. the ground of bona-fide and personal necessity of the petitioner-landlord was sufficiently proven, therefore, the right of the petitioner-landlord to evict the respondents-tenants from the property in question existed. 16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, which takes strength from the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bikaner, the judgment and certificate dated 02.04.2016 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner is upheld. All pending applications stand disposed of.