KISHAN ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. KAMLA JAIN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To question correctness of the judgment dated 13.2.2013 passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6219/2009 this appeal is preferred. By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench set aside the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Smt. Kamla Jain preferred an original application as per provisions of Sections 6, 9 and 10(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. Learned Rent Tribunal accepted the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the rented premises as claimed by the landlady, accordingly, issued a certificate of eviction. The Tribunal also made an order for revision of the rent as claimed for. The tenant assailed the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and also certificate of eviction. The appellate court while maintaining the decision of the Rent Tribunal to the extent of revision of rent set aside certificate of eviction by arriving at the conclusion that the finding given with regard to bonafide necessity of the rented premises was not correct. The landlady challenged the judgment passed by the appellate court with assertion that the evidence adduced is sufficient to establish the bonafide necessity, but the appellate court failed to appreciate the same. Before learned Single Bench it was asserted on behalf of the landlady that the rented premises was under occupation of the tenant from decades without any interference and the eviction of that was claimed due to a reasonable and bonafide necessity. It was stated that the landlady is an old lady and she is in need of a residence on ground floor being suffered with cardiac ailment. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire material available on record set aside the judgment passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal to the extent that was adverse to the landlady.

(2.) In this appeal, it is submitted by Shri Prakash Khatri, partner of the appellant firm, that learned Single Judge interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal though that was not touching to any jurisdictional error.

(3.) It is submitted that the landlady herself never came before the Rent Tribunal in evidence but the Rent Tribunal by relying upon the other material accepted bonafide necessity. It is asserted that bonafide necessity claimed for was not well founded and was accepted without having sufficient material.