Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 315 (RAJ)

Chandra Singh v. Sunil Singh Baghela

2024-02-20

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) The writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: 1. the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Case No.70/2023 (NCV No.82/2023) may be quashed and set aside and 2. The Case No.70/2023 (NCV No.82/2023) pending before the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan may kindly be dismissed with costs; and 3. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord sent a legal notice dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-1) to the petitioner tenant for eviction of the premises in dispute wherein he demanded Rs. 2,38,2023/- for rent amount due to the respondent-landlord. The respondent also provided the details of his bank account and provided a time period of 30 days for payment of the due rent. Thereafter, on 21.04.2023, the respondent-landlord preferred an eviction application (Annexure- 2) under section 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2001'), on the ground of bonafide necessity, and also demanded arrears of rent without complying with the provisions of the Act of 2001, which mandates that a period of 30 days is to be provided to the petitioner tenant before filing of the eviction application, which was not provided by the respondent. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant filed reply (Annexure-3) to the legal notice sent by the respondent-landlord and therein denied the existence of the rent agreement executed between the respondent and the petitioner and also denied the landlord-tenant relationship. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application (Annexure- 4) stating therein that the eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord is premature, as the respondent filed the eviction application on the ground of arrears of rent, and as per the second proviso of the Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, 30 days time period from the date of service of legal notice ought to be given to the petitioner-tenant for the payment of the arrears of rent, which was not given to the petitioner-tenant. Furthermore, the respondent-landlord did not prefer to file a reply to the application filed by the petitioner-tenant. 5. Thereafter, the learned tribunal vide order dated 04.1.2024 (Annexure-5) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-tenant without considering the material available on record. Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-5), the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-5) is illegal and contrary to law which deserves to be dismissed, as the finding of the learned Rent Tribunal is perverse that the eviction application has been filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, which does not provide any obligation to serve a legal notice to the petitioner-tenant. He further submits that the eviction application has not been filed on the ground of bonafide necessity whereas it has been filed on the ground of arrears of rent, and this fact has not been considered by the learned Rent Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it was mandatory for the respondent-landlord to provide a period of 30 days from the date of service of legal notice for depositing the arrears of rent. Thus, the eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord is premature. 8. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 for requirement of the premises in dispute for bonafide necessity i.e. for running the business of heritage hotel and restaurant. He further submits that the submissions of the petitioner-tenant are baseless that the respondent-landlord has filed the eviction application for arrears of rent whereas by perusal of eviction application (Annexure-A/2), it is clear that the respondent-landlord has filed an eviction application under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, and thus the petitioner-tenant is misleading the facts and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the eviction application is premature, should be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the landlord has remedy under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 for recovering arrears of rent whereas the respondent-landlord in the present case has filed an eviction application under Section 9 (i) on the ground of bonafide necessity. Section 6 and 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is reproduced hereinunder:- "6. Section 6 and 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is reproduced hereinunder:- "6. Revision of rent in respect of existing tenancies. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement, where the premises have been let out before the commencement of this Act, the rent thereof shall be liable to be revised according to the formula indicated below:- (a) where the premises have been let out prior to 1st January, 1950, it shall be deemed to have been let out on 1st January, 1950 and the rent payable at that time shall be liable to be increased at the rate of [5] % per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the rate of [5] % per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of this Act- (b) where the premises have been let out on or after 1st January, 1950, the rent payable at the time of commencement of the tenancy shall be liable to be increased at the rate of [5] % per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the rate of [5] % per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of this Act Illustration :- If the rent was Rs. 100 per month on 1st January, 1950, it shall become Rs. 175/- per month on 1st January, 1960. It shall become Rs. 306.30 per month on 1st January, 1970 and Rs. 536.30 per month on 1st January, 1980. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where the period of ten years for merger of increase of rent under sub-section (1) is not-completed upto the year of the commencement of this Act, the rent at the rate of [5] % per annum shall be increased upto the year of the commencement of this Act and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in rent. (3) The rent arrived at according to the formula given in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall, after completion of each year from the year of commencement of this Act, again be liable to be increased and paid at the rate of [5] % per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. Such rent shall further be liable to be increased at similar rate and merged in similar manner till the tenancy subsists. (4) The rent revised as per formula given under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) shall be payable, after the commencement of this Act, from the date agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant or where any petition is filed in a Rent Tribunal, from the date of filing of such petition." "9. Eviction of tenants.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or contract but subject to other provisions of this Act, Rent Tribunal shall not order eviction of tenant unless it is satisfied that,- (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation, of any person for whose benefit the premises are held." 10. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner submitted that the respondent-landlord in his prayer prayed for the amount of rent due to the respondent-landlord then he was under obligation to give the petitioner-tenant a time period of 30 days from the service of notice before filing the eviction application, as mentioned under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 which pertains to arrears of rent whereas the petitioner filed the eviction application under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 which does not mandate giving a legal notice and thereafter a period of 30 days time period from the service of notice before filing the eviction application. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-5) has rightly observed that the eviction application dated 26.04.2023 was filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 on the ground of bonafide necessity for running the business of heritage hotel and restaurant, and under this Section, there is no mandate of giving a legal notice for the purpose of filing an eviction application and moreover, the legal notice dated 20.04.2023 was given to the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of the rent from the petitioner-tenant. Section 9 (a) and (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 are reproduced hereinunder:- "9. Eviction of tenants.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or contract but subject to other provisions of this Act, Rent Tribunal shall not order eviction of tenant unless it is satisfied that,- (a) the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months: Provided that the ground under this clause shall not be available to the landlord if he has not disclosed to the tenant his hank account number and name of the bank in the same Municipal area, in the rent agreement or by a notice sent to him by registered post, acknowledgement due : Provided further that no petition on the ground under [his clause shall he filed unless the landlord has given it notice to the tenant by registered post, acknowledgement due, demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent within a period of thirty days from the (late of service of notice. (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation, of any person for whose benefit the premises are held." 12. (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation, of any person for whose benefit the premises are held." 12. This Court also observes that the petitioner-tenant's submissions that the respondent-landlord in the prayer filed before the Learned Rent Tribunal, prayed for the recovery of rent due to the respondent-landlord thus he was under obligation to give the petitioner-tenant a time period of 30 days from the service of notice before filing the eviction application is devoid of merit as it is an admitted fact that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 and not under Section 9 (a) of the Act of 2001, which neither mandates a prior notice nor provides giving 30 days period from the service of notice before filing the eviction petition. 13. Thus, the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur does not call for any interference and the writ petition being bereft of any merit, is dismissed. 14. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.