GHISA LAL Vs. TAPADIA BAGICHI TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants against the judgment and recovery certificate dtd. 4/11/2019 whereby, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar has dismissed the Appeal No.20/2012, CIS No.42/2014 preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dtd. 21/5/2012 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar in Eviction Petition No.13/2004 whereby, the rent application filed by the respondents-applicants was partly allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that indisputably, the respondents have filed a suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity-'the Act of 1950') wherein it was alleged that the tenant was trying to sub-let the premises which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the learned trial court vide order dtd. 29/11/2003 and the present rent application was filed on 20/12/2003, i.e., within a short span thereafter with averment that the property was sublet. He submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, it was apparent that the plea of sub-letting was false. He submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in granting recovery certificate on the ground of sub-letting of the eastern shop in absence of any pleading or proof as to the parting with its exclusive possession by the tenant and also in absence of any pleading/proof as to the parting with possession for monetary consideration, i.e., rent. Drawing attention of this Court towards the averments contained in the rent application and statement of Vijay Kumar (AW-1), he contended that it was neither pleaded nor established by the applicants that exclusive possession of the suit shop was handed over by the tenant to the petitioner No.2 and it was so for monetary consideration. Learned counsel asserted that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that it was a family business which was being taken care of by his brother and sons and there was no sub-letting. He further contended that even assuming that the subject property was sub-let, in view of the fact that it was done so way back in the year 1984 and the applicants have been receiving rent even for part of the premises sub-let since long, it would amount to implied consent to subletting. He submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal erred in deciding the Issue No.2 wrongly placing burden of proof upon them. He, in this regard, relied upon following judgments:

(3.) With regard to scope of interference in the concurrent findings of facts, the learned counsel relied upon following judgments: