NARAYAN LAL Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Narayan Lal against the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran dated 27/9/2012 and that of the Rent Tribunal Baran dated 28/2/2012. Rent Tribunal by the aforesaid order had allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground contained in Sec. 9(j) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, the "Act of 2001") holding that the petitioner-tenant has purchased and acquired possession of the nearby shop on 17/12/1999, which was sufficient and adequate for his requirements and the Appellate Rent Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant, has affirmed that order of the Rent Tribunal. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are that while respondent-landlord asserted that petitioner has purchased and acquired possession of the nearby shop, which is adequate for his requirement and therefore, the petitioner was liable to be evicted on the ground contained in sub-sec. (j) of Sec. 9 of the Act of 2001, petitioner-tenant disputed this fact by contending that in the family arrangement, the said shop has been exclusively given to his son Sunil Kumar on 7/6/2008, who along with another brother Dinesh Kumar, who had purchased the adjoining shop, started their own business by demolishing the wall of the adjoining shop and joined two shops together. Thus, the shop was no longer available for the petitioner-tenant for his business requirement.

(2.) Shri B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Sec. 9(j) of the Act of 2001 postulates that premise, which has become available to tenant should be sufficient and adequate for his requirement. Tribunal can not order eviction unless it is satisfied about the suitability and adequacy of such premises. This is a pre-requisite mandatory requirement, which is evident from the very language of Sec. 9(j), which inter-alia provides that Rent Tribunal shall not order eviction of tenant unless it is satisfied that the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted suitable premises, adequate for his requirement. Neither Rent Tribunal nor Appellate Rent Tribunal has considered, discussed and recorded such satisfaction about suitability and adequacy of the said premises.

(3.) Shri B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the shop in question was purchased on 17/12/1999 when the Act of 2001 was not even enacted. Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, the "Act of 1950") was in vogue at that time. In that old Act, acquiring possession of suitable residential premises alone was a ground of eviction, there being no such provision for commercial premises. New Act came into force on 1/4/2003, thus for the period of four years prior thereto, there was no law, which created any such inhibition for purchase of shop. Respondent-landlord has filed eviction petition much belatedly thereafter on 15/3/2011 namely; 11 years after purchase of the shop. Provisions of the new Act, especially those contained in Sec. 9(i) therefore cannot be retrospectively applied to the case of petitioner. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had acquired a vested right, which cannot be taken away in this manner. If at all the new Act is applied, it should be applied only prospectively and not retrospectively. This intention of the legislature is evident from the language of clause (j) of Sec. 9, which provides that the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted suitable premises adequate for his requirement. Word 'has' denotes to the present point of time and not to the past. Whatever had been purchased by the petitioner prior to enforcement of the new Act, cannot be therefore made basis for his eviction under the new Act. Shri B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Act of 2001 contemplates that the premises so acquired should be in possession of the tenant for his requirement. In the present case, shop purchased in 1999 by the tenant was not presently available to him for use because, it has been given in the family settlement to his younger son Sunil Kumar on 7/6/2008, three years before filing of the eviction petition by the respondent. Family settlement is not compulsorily registrable and is therefore admissible in law. Appellate Rent Tribunal committed serious illegality in not considering this aspect.