MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL, BHILWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that on 30/11/2007 respondent no.2/landlord filed an application under Sec. 9(A) (J) & (L) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2001') before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara stating inter alia that his commercial property i.e. Godown No. 33 was on rent @ Rs.2420.00 per month with the petitioner/tenant, of which, respondent no.2/landlord is in bonafide need whereas the petitioner/tenant is not in need of the godown as he has put lock on the godown. For the last 15 months, the petitioner is neither taking any use of the rented property nor is paying rent. The rent of 30 months is due against the petitioner/tenant and despite giving notice neither the petitioner is paying rent nor is handing over vacant possession of the godown. Thus, the petitioner, by not paying the rent since March 2002, has committed default in payment of rent. He, thus, prayed for vacating the godown from petitioner and for handing over the same to respondent no. 2.

(3.) The petitioner in his reply to the application stated that the rent of disputed premises was not Rs.2420.00 per month but was Rs.2000.00 per month. The respondent no. 2 is not having bonafide need of the disputed godown whereas the petitioner is having reasonable and bonafide necessity of the godown in-question. He has not put any lock on godown whereas he is using the godown continuously. No rent is due against him. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay rent but the respondent no. 2 is not ready to accept the same. The petitioner has not received any kind of notice from respondent no. 2 nor he is having any knowledge of any such notice. On vacating the disputed godown the petitioner would become unemployed and his family will have to face financial difficulties/hardship and they have no other source of livelihood. The petitioner is not having any other godown except the disputed godown. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner has taken the disputed premises on lease on 1/5/1990 by executing an agreement, according to which, the respondent no.2 has to deposit Rs.1.00 lac before vacating the godown and has to pay to the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent no.2 without paying Rs.1.00 lac to petitioner, has no right to get the godown vacated. The respondent no. 2 concealing the said fact has filed application and, has not come before learned Tribunal with clean hands. The petitioner has paid rent to respondent no. 2 upto December 2003. The petitioner was ready to pay the rent to the respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 has not accepted the rent and now the respondent no. 2 cannot say that the petitioner has defaulted in paying the rent and now he is not entitled to receive the rent. The respondent no. 2 has not made it clear in his application about the requirement of the disputed premises whereas the respondent no.2 is having several vacant godowns and could have utilized the same upon any requirement. He wants to get vacated the disputed godown, as earlier also he has sold several godowns and shops and with a view to sell, he wants to evict the petitioner whereas the petitioner is ready to purchase the said godown. The petitioner is using the godown for the business of scrap and ultimately the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application.