PAWAN KUMAR PARNAMI Vs. NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 29 -11 -2014 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan City Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Appellate Tribunal') affirming the judgment dated 17 -8 -2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan City Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') whereby the petitioner -non -applicant -tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') has been directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises at the instance of respondent -applicant -landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') on his petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act') and a certificate of possession of tenanted premises had been issued in favour of the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord sought the tenant's eviction from shop No. 47, Plot No. 8 Gurunanakpura Rajapark Jaipur on ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of his son Dinesh, a major and unemployed, as also on ground of default in payment of rent. On service of the eviction petition, the tenant filed a reply of denial. Three issues for trial were framed which loosely translated, are as under: -

(3.) COUNSEL for the tenant (petitioner before this court) has submitted that the judgments passed by the Tribunal as also the Appellate Tribunal are perverse to the evidence on record. It has been submitted that the Tribunal as also the Appellate Tribunal have failed to appreciate that the requirement propounded by the landlord was neither bona fide nor reasonable as the evidence on record established that the landlord had in his possession an area seven times larger than the tenanted shop wherefrom his son Dinesh could carry out his business. It was also submitted that there was no proof of any probative worth to find that Dinesh had any experience to do business in the sale and purchase of coolers or their repairs as was sought. It was also submitted that Naveen, the landlord's other son had bought an adjoining property, supported by his father, the applicant landlord's funds and if Dinesh bona fidely required any place to do his business, the newly bought property could have been utilised but in fact was not and instead sold off in 2014. It has been further pointed out that Dinesh was anyways engaged in business and was working from the adjoining shop (belonging to the landlord) in the name and style of Naveen Sales Corporation as evident from the fact of his signing two Pills of material sold from said shop on 25 -10 -2003 and 30 -10 -2003. Counsel further submitted that even otherwise the Appellate Tribunal's judgment dated 29 -11 -2014 is liable to be quashed and set aside in view of its failure to consider applications under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 C.P.C. filed by the tenant even while dismissing the appeal.