KAMLESH KANWAR Vs. SHANTI LAL JAIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 20-1-2015 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Appellate Tribunal') setting aside the order dated 2-12-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') wherein it was directed that the petitioner-applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant') purporting to be a tenant of respondent-non-applicant (hereinafter 'the non-applicant') could not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute except by due process and would not be obstructed in the enjoyment of premises in issue including electricity connection thereto during his tenancy.

(2.) The facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was taken by the applicant purporting to be a tenant. It was prayed that the non-applicant-landlord (hereinafter 'landlord') be restrained from dispossessing her without due process of law and the electricity supply disconnected by the non-applicant from the applicant's tenanted shop be restored. Reply of denial to the applicant's application was filed. It was stated that there was no tenancy as claimed and therefore the application itself was not maintainable before the Tribunal, limited in its jurisdiction to landlord-tenant disputes. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and documentary evidence submitted, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's case vide order dated 2-12-2014 as detailed herein above. The non-applicant preferred an appeal against the order dated 2-12-2014 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order dated 2-12-2014 and held that from the evidence before the Tribunal the relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the non-applicant was not made out, the Tribunal's order dated 2-12-2014 was liable to be set aside and consequently the application filed by the applicant was liable to be dismissed. Hence this composite petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the applicant aggrieved of the order dated 20-1-2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Prahald Sharma, counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has committed gross illegality and palpable error in interfering with the findings of fact by the Tribunal. It has been submitted that from the evidence before the Tribunal the relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and non-applicant was proved. For this conclusion the Tribunal had relied upon a statement of Prakash Chand Khunteta husband of one Nathi Devi, the predecessor-in- interest of non-applicant Shanti Lal Jain, who had purchased the shop in dispute from her. It has been submitted that the aforesaid Prakash Chand and Madhukar Khunteta, in proceedings taken under another eviction petition with regard to a shop in the vicinity of the shop in issue owned by Prakash Chand, had stated that the applicant's husband Narayan was a tenant in the disputed shop. Counsel has submitted that aside of aforesaid, the documentary evidence such as a licence issued under the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 in the name of M/s. Madhukar Floor Mill with the applicant Kamlesh Kanwar w/o Narayan as proprietor on 11-1-1986 in respect of the shop in the disputed premises, and communications from Life Insurance Corporation of India to petitioner's husband Narayan addressed at the said shop, certificates of Weight and Measurment department dated 5-4-2003 again addressed to the applicant at the shop in issue and the demand notice to the applicant as proprietor of Madhu Floor Mill for payment of necessary charges by Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited all established that the applicant was in possession of the disputed shop as tenant. All the evidence on record as aforesaid before the Tribunal fully justified its judgment dated 2-12-2014 holding that the applicant was a tenant in the disputed shop and a tenant-landlord relationship existed between her and the non-applicant. It has been submitted that conclusions of the Tribunal were however wrongly interfered with by the Appellate Tribunal without just cause. The said conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal are wholly perverse, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and that of the Tribunal restored.