SUMIT MANCHANDA Vs. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition purporting to be a composite one under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, but apparently one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the judgment dated 29.10.2012, passed by the Appellant Rent Tribunal, Kota setting aside the judgment dated 23.01.2007, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota, dismissing the respondent -landlord's (hereinafter "the landlord") eviction petition on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity and instead directing the eviction of the petitioner -tenant (hereinafter "the tenant") and issuing a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the landlord filed an application under Sections 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act of 2001") for revision of rent as also for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted shop. The Rent Tribunal even while holding that the landlord was entitled to revision of rent, dismissed his prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity primarily on the ground that the landlord admittedly a resident of Baran, could not reasonably and bona fidely require a shop at Kota which was on rent with the tenant. The Rent Tribunal further noted that even otherwise the case set up by the landlord was not credible of belief as the landlord sought to set up a furniture shop in the tenanted premises, yet admittedly as per his own statement before the Rent Tribunal as also that of his witnesses, he had no such previous experience. Another fact which prevailed with the Rent Tribunal was in dismissing the prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity was that in the building where the tenanted premises was situate, the family members of the landlord had earlier sold two shops and if at all the landlord had required a place for his business, those shops would not have been sold. On these three grounds, bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord was found wanting and the eviction was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal.

(3.) MR . R.P. Garg, appearing for the tenant submits that from the evidence on record it was established that the landlord had a residential house in Pratap Chowk, Baran and further that there was a shop on the ground floor thereof from where the landlord used to carry out his business in the name and style of "Galav Traders". Counsel submits that in the reply to the eviction petition it was so specifically asserted and there being on rejoinder to the said assertion the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought to have construed it to be an admission of the landlord running a shop in the name and style of "Galav Traders" from the ground floor of his house in Pratap Chowk, Baran. Counsel submitted that it is inconceivable that any person would travel 75 -80 km one way each day from Baran to do business in another place i.e. Kota. Counsel further submits that in the circumstances there was no good cause with the Appellate Rent Tribunal in upsetting and setting aside the conclusion of the Rent Tribunal that the eviction of tenanted shop sought was a mere desire of the landlord and not his bona fide and reasonable necessity. Thus the judgment dated 29.10.2012, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal be set aside and that of the Rent Tribunal dismissing the eviction petition of the landlord to the extent of eviction of the tenant be restored.