RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. ANAND SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19-11-2008 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Jaipur (hereinafter the 'Appellate Tribunal') upholding the certificate of possession issued by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') vide order dated 19-9-2007 in favour of the respondent landlord Anand Swaroop Sharma, since deceased (hereinafter 'the landlord') and now represented through his legal representative Yashwant Prakash Sharma against the petitioner tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant').

(2.) The facts of the case are that the applicant landlord filed an application in 2004 against the tenant for his eviction under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter Rs. 2001 Act') on the grounds of nuisance, acquisition of alternative accommodation and the landlord's reasonable and bonafide necessity of the tenanted shop situate at Jawahar Nagar Road, Jaipur, more particularly described in para No.3 of the application. It was stated that the landlord let out the disputed shop on 4-4-1986 on a rent of Rs.325/- per month and the rent as revised at the time of filing of the application stood at Rs.550/- excluding the charges for electricity. The grounds on which eviction was sought were that the tenant without the consent of the landlord had fixed gas-welding and lath machines in the tenanted shop damaging the floor; the machines affixed in the shop caused nuisance; the tenant had purchased the adjacent shop from the brother of the landlord, and thus had vacant possession of premises suitable and adequate for his requirement and because the shop in issue under tenancy was required for the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord. It was stated that the landlord subsequent to his retirement in 1992 had depleting resources and needed to supplement his income. It was prayed that in these circumstances a certificate of possession under Section 9 of the 2001 Act be issued against the tenant who be directed to be evicted.

(3.) On service of notice of the eviction petition, reply thereto was filed by the tenant on 13-7-2005. All averments and grounds in support of the application were denied. The tenant denied having damaged the floor by affixing gas-welding machine and lath machine and or that he had caused any nuisance. It was submitted that the case set up by the landlord with regard to the bonafide need of doing business to supplement his income was baseless and not bonafide and reasonable as the landlord was sufficiently prosperous and had well placed sons who were in service and in business. It was submitted that the landlord hence did not need any supplement to his income. The purchase of the adjacent shop by the tenant was denied. It was submitted that the tenant has no other source of income except the business running from the tenanted shop. Consequently, it was prayed that the eviction petition was without substance and deserved dismissal. The landlord filed rejoinder to the reply to eviction application on 28-11-2005 negating the reply of the tenant on all material averments.