SHARAD KUMAR Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') to the judgment dated 21-4-2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Bharatpur (for short, 'Appellate Tribunal" in Appeal No. 32/2006 (CIS No. 71/2014) partly allowing the respondent-landlords' (hereafter 'the landlord') appeal, but reversing the judgment dated 15-11-2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal Bharatpur and directing his eviction from the tenanted premises on the ground of the landldord's bona fide and reasonable necessity.

(2.) Heard counsel for the contesting parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Tribunal.

(3.) Shri Krishna Verma appearing for the tenant submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal that the landlord did not have bona fide and reasonable necessity leading to dismissal of the eviction petition was well considered, and therefore the Appellate Rent Tribunal had no occasion to interfere therewith. He submitted that from the evidence before the Rent Tribunal it was established that a shop rented by the Hindu Joint Family to which the landlord and his son Madan Mohan belonged was being used by it and Madan Mohan's requirement of doing business as propounded in his petition by the landlord would be satisfied by his engaging in the continuing joint family business from the said rented shop. It was submitted that the lack of bona fides of the landlord in seeking the tenant's eviction was also apparent from the fact that earlier the landlord had propounded his own bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop but had failed with the said eviction petition being dismissed in 1991. Subsequently a second eviction petition putting forth the landlord's brother's bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop was also dismissed. Mr. Krishna Verma, counsel for the tenant submitted that in the aforesaid factual backdrop, the landlord's 3rd eviction petition (from which this petition arises) for the purported bona fide and reasonable necessity of his son's business was only in pursuit of the original intent since 1991 to somehow get the tenanted shop vacated. Such an eviction petition should have thus been seen through on an active consideration of the history of the tenancy and dismissed.