SATYA NARAIN AJMERA Vs. JASWANT SINGH BOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment dated 20.7.12 of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant against the judgment and order dated 11.1.10 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowing the petition preferred on behalf of the respondents/landlord u/S. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act") and the certificate for recovery of possession issued pursuant thereto, stands dismissed.

(2.) THE respondents filed a petition u/S. 9 of the Act seeking petitioner's eviction from a commercial premises, on various grounds viz. the tenant causing substantial damage to the premises, material alteration, reasonable & bona fide necessity of the premises and the tenant acquiring vacant possession of the suitable premises adequate for his requirement, in terms of the provisions of Section 9(b), 9(c), 9(i) & 9(j) of the Act respectively. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. A rejoinder to the reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues in the following terms: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_3490_RAJLW4_2013.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_3490_RAJLW41_2013.jpg</IMG>

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in not considering the defence of the petitioner that the eviction petition has been filed with oblique motive. Learned counsel submitted that in the reply filed, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that the landlord, respondent No. 1 herein, has filed the petition for eviction with the oblique motive i.e. for enhancing the existing rent of the premises to Rs.10,000/ - per month. Learned counsel submitted that in the rejoinder filed, the averments made by the petitioner as aforesaid have not been controverted by the respondents and therefore, the Rent Tribunal should have proceeded on the basis that averments made stand admitted. Learned counsel submitted that since the petition was filed by the respondent actuated by oblique motive, no order of eviction could have been passed by the Rent Tribunal on the plea of reasonable & bona fide necessity. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 2, the daughter -in -law of the petitioner, cannot be said to be a family member of the landlord and therefore, no decree of eviction could have been passed by the Rent Tribunal on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity as pleaded. Learned counsel submitted that in the petition for eviction filed, the daughter -in -law of the respondent was impleaded as petitioner No. 2, who is not the landlord and therefore, the Rent Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.