Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 556 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal Rathi S/o Shri Chhagan Lal Rathi v. Ram Kumar

2022-02-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and the Judgement dated 27.03.2018 (Annex-6) passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent appeal No.133/2013 titled as Ramkumar Vs. Shankarlal Rathi may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgement dated 23.09.2013 (Annex-5) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Civil Case No.58/2011 titled as Shivbux Vs. Shankarlal may kindly be restored." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the late father of the present respondent No.1 filed an eviction application under Sections 9A, 9I, 9J & 9K of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of the shop premises situated outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner on the ground that his wife is the lawful owner/landlord of the shop premises in question, of which the present petitioner is the tenant; the said premise in question is required for their personal and bonafide necessity, and a rent agreement to that effect was also entered into between both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23.09.2013 dismissed the application preferred by the respondent, aggrieved whereby the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during pendency of the aforementioned appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, the father of respondent No.1 died, and thus, his legal heir, including son (respondent No.1) were brought on record before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 27.03.2018, while quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 27.03.2018, while quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that incorrect averments were made by the respondent No.1/landlord before the learned Rent Tribunal, to the effect that the petitioner did not pay rent for a period of about 35 months (since August, 2006), and a notice requiring the petitioner/tenant for making the payment of outstanding rent dues to the tune of Rs. 21,825/- was sent to him, and despite of such notice, the petitioner/tenant did not make the necessary payment, nor did he vacate the premises. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner not only made the necessary payment towards the outstanding rental dues, but also made advance payment for the period uptill June, 2011 to the respondent’s brother, and that the same was done through the banking transaction. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned Rent Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and merits of the case in detail, found that no bonafide or personal necessity existed, as claimed by the respondent/landlord by averring that the premises in question was required for the use of his sons, whereas his sons were gainfully employed, and thus, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly ruled in the favour of the petitioner vide its judgment dated 23.09.2013. Thus, as per learned counsel, the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not justified in reversing the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that the respondent filed an eviction application in the year 2011 stating therein clearly that the premises in question was required for the immediate use of his sons and grandsons. Learned counsel further submits that before the learned Rent Tribunal, it was categorically stated and admitted under oath by the late father of the respondent No.1 on 18.02.2012 that his four sons were employed, and that the shop premises in question was required for the use of his grandchildren. Learned counsel further submits that before the learned Rent Tribunal, it was categorically stated and admitted under oath by the late father of the respondent No.1 on 18.02.2012 that his four sons were employed, and that the shop premises in question was required for the use of his grandchildren. 9.1 Learned counsel also submits that that it was further admitted that he did not mention the same in the notice so sent to the petitioner/tenant, because the notice was sent for recovery of outstanding dues payable by the petitioner/tenant for a period of 35 months, and that the ground of personal and bonafide necessity of the respondent/landlord arose at a later stage. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 23.9.2013, incorrectly held that the eviction so sought by the respondent/ landlord on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity, could not be fully substantiated, as sufficient evidence to that effect was not produced before it. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord also submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 27.03.2018, rightly held that it would be inappropriate, as observed by the learned Rent Tribunal, to delve into an analysis as to where and in what manner, the respondent/landlord must conduct his business, and that it will be the sole prerogative of the owner/landlord of the shop premises in question to decide such course of action. 11.1 Learned counsel, while submitting that even though the notice was sent to the petitioner/tenant for recovery of dues owed to the respondent/ landlord, the respondent/landlord, at the time of deposition thereof before the learned Rent Tribunal, raised the ground of personal and bonafide necessity for eviction of tenant from the shop premises in question. 12. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2018 was passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, while deriving strength from the following judgments: 12.1 Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand, AIR 2012 SC 881 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a Court cannot direct a land owner / landlord on the manner in which she/he should start or conduct their business. 12.2 Raj Kumar Khaitann Vs. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand, AIR 2012 SC 881 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a Court cannot direct a land owner / landlord on the manner in which she/he should start or conduct their business. 12.2 Raj Kumar Khaitann Vs. Bivi Zubaida, AIR 1995 SC 576 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the land owner / landlord does not have to necessarily state the exact personal or bonafide necessity, for which the rented premises in question is required, and that the same may be decided after the premises are vacated. 12.3 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali, AIR 2010 SC 2679 wherein the land owner / landlord’s personal and bonafide necessity to seek vacation of the rented premises in question would be best known to the land owner / landlord himself. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord thus submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, has rightly passed the impugned judgment in the favour of the respondent/landlord. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 15. This Court observes that the legal notice served upon the petitioner/tenant by the late father of respondent No.1 was issued with a clear purpose for recovery of outstanding rent dues for a period of 35 months, to the tune of Rs. 21,825/-, stating therein that the non payment of the same to the landlord would attract litigious action against him. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner/tenant that the personal and bonafide necessity was not revealed or stated in the said notice itself, is not sustainable in the eye of law, as was rightly adjudged by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. 16. This Court further observes that before the learned court below, at the first instance, the late father of the respondent No.1, admitted under oath that even though the ground of personal and bonafide necessity was not raised earlier, the shop premises in question was in fact required for the immediate use of his sons and grandsons, and that, this does not and should not affect his subsequent application seeking eviction on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity; the same was duly and rightly appreciated by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. 17. 17. This Court also observes that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2018 also kept in mind the precedent laws laid down in Mohd. Ayub (supra), Raj Kumar (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (supra), as cited before it. 18. Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal is based on a correct appreciation of the evidence placed before it and the law of the land as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and hence, the same does not warrant any interference under the writ jurisdiction by this Court. 19. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.