Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 448 (RAJ)

Jaspal Singh Kumar v. Rishi Bhargav

2023-02-07

INDERJEET SINGH

body2023
ORDER : (Inderjeet Singh, J.) Since these two writ petitions relates to the one and the same property and are assailing the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal, hence with consent of the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order. 2. The petitioner (to be referred as tenant) has filed these writ petitions challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby the appeal No.37/2021 filed on behalf of the tenant against the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II was dismissed and cross Appeal No.40/2021 filed on behalf of the respondents (to be referred as landlord) was allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1975, the shop in dispute was taken on rent by the father of the tenant. The landlord filed eviction application against the tenant in the year 2015 on the ground that the building (disputed premises) is in a dilapidated condition and the same is required for construction and running of a hospital in the memory of their head of the family late Mr. Panna Lal. The tenant filed reply to the eviction application and denied the averments made therein and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal framed following issues:- ^^1- vk;k vthZnkj dks vthZ ds en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s'kqnk ifj"kj ttZj voLFkk esa gksus ls ekuo thou ds fy, vlqjf{kr gks x;k gS] ftlds ejEer ds fy, vthZnkj dks fookfnr ifjlj dh vko';drk gS\ -------------------vthZnkj 2- vk;k vthZnkj dks vthZ dh en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s'kqnk ifj"kj dks vthZnkos esa of.kZrkuqlkj futh- lnHkkfod ,oa ;qfDr;Dr vko';drk gS\ -----------vthZnkj** 4- vuqrks"k** 4. The landlord in support of their eviction application adduced the evidence of PW-1-Dr. Rishi Bhargava, and also submitted the documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.33. The tenant in support of their reply adduced the evidence of DW-1-Jaspal Singh and also produced the documentary evidence Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6, thereafter, the Rent Tribunal finally heard the matter and decided the issue No.1 in favour of the landlord and issue No.2 was decided against the landlord vide its order dated 06.08.2021. 5. The tenant in support of their reply adduced the evidence of DW-1-Jaspal Singh and also produced the documentary evidence Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6, thereafter, the Rent Tribunal finally heard the matter and decided the issue No.1 in favour of the landlord and issue No.2 was decided against the landlord vide its order dated 06.08.2021. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2021, the tenant filed Appeal No.37/2021 and the landlord filed cross Appeal No.40/2021 for quashing of the finding given on issue No.2 by the Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the cross appeal filed on behalf of the landlord vide its order dated 07.09.2022. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal. 6. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal failed to consider the provisions of the law as well as the documentary evidence in this matter. Counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding with regard to issue No.1 without any basis. Counsel further submits that so far as issue No.2 of bona fide need and necessity of the landlord is concerned, the finding recorded thereon is also perverse as the landlord wants to construct the hospital after demolishing the disputed premises which is merely a desire of the landlord and not the bona fide necessity. 7. In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shadi Singh v. Rakha reported in (1992) 3 SCC 55 . 8. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kempaiah v. Lingaiah and Ors. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 718 . 9. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in (1999) 6 SCC 222 . 10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties of landlord and tenant. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in (1999) 6 SCC 222 . 10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties of landlord and tenant. He further submits that the landlord is a doctor by profession and he wants to construct and run a hospital over the disputed premises. Counsel further submits that it is not a case of desire whereas it is a case of bona fide necessity and the landlord who is doctor by profession wants to construct a hospital over the disputed premises. Counsel further submits that it is for the landlord to choose the premises for his business/profession and it is not for the tenant to advice the landlord as to what type of business/profession, the landlord should start. 11. Counsel for the landlord relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 1 in which in para 36, 37 and 38 it has been held as under:- "36. A finding as to bona fide requirement for doing readymade garments business by Matloob Ahmad has been expressly recorded by the appellant authority. The said finding was a finding of fact. Neither could it have been interfered with, nor has it been set aside by the writ court. In view of the above position, the High Court was wrong in allowing the writ petition. 37. As observed earlier, statutory remedy has been provided under the Act against an order passed by the prescribed authority by filing an appeal before the District Judge (Section 22). There is no further remedy under the Act. The tenant, in the circumstances, approached the High Court by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law." 12. Counsel for the landlord further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi, reported in 2016 (10) SCC 209 in which in para 12 it has been held as under:- "12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premises were lying vacant for running business of respondent's son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to which shop her son should start the business from." 13. Counsel for the landlord further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors., reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252 , in which in para-4 it has been held as under :- "4. First of all we shall take up the question of bona fide need of the landlords. So far as the partition of the property and the present premises coming to the share of the landlords are concerned, there is no dispute that the portion of the building has come to the share of the landlords and they are the owners as a result of the partition of the family properties. But the question is whether the landlords who are the owners of the portion of the building have substantiated the allegation with regard to the bona fide need or not. But the question is whether the landlords who are the owners of the portion of the building have substantiated the allegation with regard to the bona fide need or not. We have gone through the findings of the trial court as well as that of the appellate authority and the High Court and after closely scrutinizing the same, we do not think that the finding recorded by appellate court and the High Court can be interfered by this Court on the ground of being perverse or without any basis. The landlords have led evidence to show that one of their sons who had requisite qualification for starting a computer institute wants to establish the same at Calicut and others for extension of their business. The trial court as well as the first appellate court and the High Court examined the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 and after considering their evidence, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the need of the respondent-landlords to start business at Calicut, is bona fide and genuine. It was held that it cannot be said that a person who is already having business at one place cannot expand his business at any other place in the country. It is true that the landlords have their business spreading over Chennai and Hyderabad and if they wanted to expand their business at Calicut it cannot be said to be unnatural thereby denying the eviction of the tenant from the premises in question. It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlords and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business. However, the trial court held in favour of tenant-appellant. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlords and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business. However, the trial court held in favour of tenant-appellant. But the appellate court as well as the High Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record, reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the need of establishing the business at Calicut by the landlords cannot be said to be lacking in bona fide." 14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. These writ petitions filed by the tenant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, so far as issue No.1 is concerned there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below which in my considered view, does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others (supra); secondly, issue No.2 relates to bona fide necessity of the landlord and the Appellate Rent Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact as the landlord is the best person to choose the place for his business/profession and more particularly in my considered view, when the landlord is a doctor by profession and he wants to construct and run the hospital over the disputed premises, in my view, no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in reversing the perverse finding given by the Rent Tribunal in this regard; thirdly, the tenant has admitted the notices given by the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur with regard to dilapidated condition of the building, thus, in my considered view, no illegality has been committed by the courts below in recording a finding of fact in favour of the landlord with regard to issue No.1; and lastly, from the material on record, it reveals that the disputed premises was given on rent to the tenant in the year 1975 and the tenant has enjoyed the property for more than 45 years, therefore in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Hence, these writ petitions stand dismissed. 16. Hence, these writ petitions stand dismissed. Copy of this order be separately place in the connected file as well.