IMTIYAJ NAI Vs. GOVIND PANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant tenant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this matter where concurrent findings of fact on the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, as arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and then, by the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due appreciation of evidence, have not been found suffering from any infirmity or shortcoming by the learned Single Judge; and hence, the baseless writ petition (CWP No.1028/2014) filed by the appellant-tenant has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.02.2014.

(2.) A baseless objection attempted to be raised by the appellant-tenant that the premises in question is not an HUF property and is rather a property of Charitable Trust, which was not registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, has also been rejected after the learned Single Judge found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the litigation was not disputed by the appellant-tenant before the Rent Tribunal; and he failed to lead any evidence to show that the property belonged to a Charitable Trust and not to the applicant landlord.

(3.) With the concurrent findings of the Tribunals and then, of the learned Single Judge, we find no reason, whatsoever, to consider interference in this matter in intra-court appeal.