Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1505 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramlal v. Padamchand Chhabra S/o Gulabchand Chhabra

2024-11-04

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7810/2016: 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity “the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal”) dismissing the Appeal No. 93/2015 preferred by the petitioner/tenant (for short “the tenant) and affirming the final order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Rent Tribunal”) in Original Application No. 415/2003 filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents No. 1/1 and 1/2 (for short “the landlord”) whereby, a recovery certificate was granted in his favour. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an original application against the tenant and the proforma respondent No. 2 under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 seeking revision of rent and eviction from the rented premises comprising of a shop on the grounds of default, material alteration, nuisance and subletting/parting with possession by the tenant in favour of the proforma respondent no. 2. 3. The tenant in its reply to the original application, admitting his status, denied the allegations qua the grounds of eviction. 4. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Rent Tribunal granted the recovery certificate on the grounds of material alteration and subletting/parting with possession. The appeal preferred thereagainst by the tenant came to be accepted qua the findings with regard to material alteration but, the recovery certificate was maintained on the ground of subletting/parting with possession by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 09.05.2016. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant is that the learned Tribunals erred in failing to appreciate that possession of the rented premises was never parted with by him in favour of the proforma respondent No. 2 and as a matter of fact, he was in its exclusive possession. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment dated 09.05.2016 be quashed and set aside and the original application filed by the landlord be dismissed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunals, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment dated 09.05.2016 be quashed and set aside and the original application filed by the landlord be dismissed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunals, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal as also by the learned Rent Tribunal, after appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, that the tenant has stopped the sports business in the suit premises for which it were let out to him and has, as a matter of fact, parted with its exclusive possession in favour of the proforma respondent No. 2. It has further been held that while, the landlord was able to establish from his cogent evidence that the tenant has parted with possession of the rented premises in favour of the proforma respondent No. 2, from the admission made by the non-applicant witnesses during the course of their cross-examination such as Shri Rajendra (DW-2), the Editor of the proforma respondent No. 2 and the documentary evidence such as Exhibit D-2, it was established that the suit premises were let out to the tenant for carrying on sports business which was closed completely and in its place, the newspaper in the name of Jaipur Midday Times was being published by the proforma respondent No. 2 from the rented premises which tantamounts to subletting/parting with possession. 9. Learned counsel for the tenant has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that these concurrent findings of facts suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant its interference under its limited supervisory jurisdiction. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7754/2016: 11. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7754/2016: 11. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity “the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal”) dismissing the Appeal No. 14/2015 preferred by the petitioner/tenant (for short “the tenant) and affirming the final order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5 and Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Rent Tribunal”) in Original Application No. 993/2006 filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents No. 1/1 and 1/2 (for short “the landlord”) whereby, a recovery certificate was granted in his favour. 12. The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an original application against the tenant and the proforma respondent No. 3 under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 seeking revision of rent and eviction from the rented premises comprising of a shop on the ground of subletting/parting with possession by the tenant in favour of the proforma respondent No. 3. 13. The tenant in its reply to the original application, admitting her status, denied the allegations qua the ground of eviction. 14. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Rent Tribunal granted the recovery certificate on the ground of subletting/parting with possession. The appeal preferred there-against by the tenant came to be dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 15. Assailing the impugned judgment, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant is that the learned Tribunals erred in failing to appreciate that possession of the rented premises was never parted with by her in favour of the proforma respondent No. 3 and as a matter of fact, she was in its exclusive possession. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment dated 09.05.2016 be quashed and set aside and the original application filed by the landlord be dismissed. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunals, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Heard. Considered. 18. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment dated 09.05.2016 be quashed and set aside and the original application filed by the landlord be dismissed. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunals, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Heard. Considered. 18. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal as also by the learned Rent Tribunal, after appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, that the tenant has stopped the electronics business in the suit premises for which it were let out to her and has, as a matter of fact, parted with its exclusive possession in favour of the proforma respondent No. 3. It has further been held that while, the landlord was able to establish from his cogent evidence that the tenant has parted with possession of the rented premises in favour of the proforma respondent No. 3, from the admission made by the non-applicant witnesses during the course of their cross-examination such as the tenant herself as DW-1 and the DW-2 Shri Rajendra, the Editor of the proforma respondent No. 3, it was established that the suit premises were let out to the tenant for carrying on electronics business which was closed completely and was not being carried out from the suit premises for last about 20 years and in its place, the newspaper in the name of Jaipur Midday Times was being published by the proforma respondent No. 3 from the rented premises which tantamounts to subletting/parting with possession. 19. Learned counsel for the tenant has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that these concurrent findings of facts suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant its interference under its limited supervisory jurisdiction. 20. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.