RAJENDRA VADYA Vs. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter "the tenant") to the judgment dated 26.05.2007, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer on 30.05.2013. By the judgment dated 26.05.2007, it was directed that the tenant, Biradh Mal, now deceased and represented by his son, the petitioner-tenant, was liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises and handover possession thereof to the respondents-landlords (hereinafter "the landlords") within six months failing which he would be liable to pay three times contracted rent in terms of Section 20(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act of 2001"). It was further held that the landlords were entitled to due rent @ Rs. 10/- per month for a period of 28 months prior to the laying of the eviction petition aggregating to Rs. 280/- with due adjustment of the rent deposited for the period aforesaid into the designated bank account of the landlords. The Rent Tribunal also held that the landlords would be entitled to revised rent in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act of 2001 @ Rs. 78/- per month with suitable yearly statutory enhancement effective 17.02.2004 i.e. after the date of filing of the petition before the Rent Tribunal.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the landlords filed an application under Sections 6 & 9 of the Act of 2001 both for revision of rent effective the date of filing of the petition and also for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent despite statutory notice and the details of the designated bank account, non-user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of the petition as also the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlords--both sisters. It was stated that the landlord had rented the premises in 1967 @ Rs. 10/- per month but the tenant was in default for over a period of over four months effective 26.10.2001 and despite the statutory notice dated 01.11.2003 demanding the payment of arrears of rent with details of the designated bank account into which it was to be deposited, the arrears were not deposited and therefore the tenant was in default as defined under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 and liable to be evicted. It was further submitted that in any event the tenant was doing business in the name and style of Oswal Medical out of a shop in Yadav Building, near Kumhar Kothi, Brahampuri, Ajmer for the last over one year and the tenanted premises were not being used for the purpose let out i.e. for a medical shop without good cause and any justification for over six months immediately prior to the laying of the eviction petition but was under lock and key. The eviction of the tenant was also sought on this ground. It was also submitted that the landlords Smt. Zamila Bano and Khurshida Bano, both sisters required the premises in issue for the bona fide and reasonable necessity of their son/nephew, Hamid Ali, an unemployed youth for commencing business therefrom in women's fashion accessories such as bangles and the landlords had adequate capital and the tenanted premises were appropriately situated for the purpose.

(3.) On service of notice, reply of denial to the averments in the petition for revision of rent and eviction was filed by the tenant. It was stated that there was no default as alleged in view of the fact that despite attempt to deposit the amount due, the landlords had refused to accept it, consequent to which the rent was deposited for the period prior to the commencement of the Act of 2001 on 01.04.2003 before the jurisdictional Civil Court for the period 26.09.2002 to 25.09.2003 under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act of 1950"). It was submitted that subsequently with the coming into force of the Act of 2001 and on receipt of the notice dated 01.11.2003 from the landlords for the purported outstanding/arrears of rent, the same as due was deposited in the designated bank account of the landlords. And consequently no ground of default under Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was made out for eviction. It was submitted that the tenanted premises was obtained during the time of the tenant's father for the purpose of a godown and it was so used by the tenant and his father. It was submitted that however subsequent to the death of the tenant's father, it came into the tenant's singular tenancy as agreed but was being used as a shop by the brother of the tenant one Sushil Kumar while the tenant had been doing business in the name and style of Oswal Medical in Yadav Building, Kumhar Kothi, Brahampuri, Ajmer. Non-user was however denied. The bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlords for the tenanted shop for the business of their son/nephew Hamid Ali was also denied and it was submitted that the location of the shop in issue was not proper and commercially viable for doing business in women's fashion accessories.