LADOO LAL JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS: Vs. SMT. KAILASH BAI W/O SHRI BHANWAR LAL, BY CASTE MALI R/O FATEHGADI, RAMPURA, KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by seven petitioners, who are all legal heirs of Ladoo Lal Jain, original tenant in the premise of landlord-respondent Smt. Kailash Bai. The respondent-landlord (for short, 'the landlord') filed a petition for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Kota, praying for eviction of the petitioners-tenant on the ground of default and reasonable bona-fide necessity. The Rent Tribunal, by judgment dated 18.02.2011 allowed the petition for eviction on both the counts. The petitioners-tenant filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.10.2015. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal, learned counsel for petitioners-tenant, has argued that both the Tribunals have erred in law in holding that the petitioners-tenant failed to deposit the rent in time and therefore committed default. The respondent-landlord served the notice on the petitioners-tenant on 27.04.2007 intimating the bank account number therein and at that time, the rent of only 26 days was due. The requirement of Sec. 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is that to apply for eviction of the tenant, the default should have been of at-least four months. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord served further notices dated 18.09.2007 and 29.09.2007, in which he demanded the outstanding rent for the period of four months. The petitioners-tenant immediately on 16.10.2007 deposited the rent on the same day but the bank authorities informed the petitioners-tenant that the bank account was in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Bai and not in the name of Smt. Kailash Bai and therefore did not accept the amount. Even in the last notice dated 29.09.2007 the respondent-landlord did not indicate the correct bank account number nor did she mention the correct name of the holder of the bank account. In the facts of the case, therefore, both the Tribunals erred in law in holding that despite receipt of the notice, the petitioners-tenant failed to deposit the rent.

(3.) On the ground of bona-fide necessity, learned counsel for petitioners-tenant argued that the Tribunals erred in law in allowing the petition on the ground of bona-fide necessity. On the western side petitioners-tenanted shop, there are two kiosks attached with the shop; one of which is of the petitioners-tenant. The shop of the respondent-landlord has opening on hundred feet wide road towards eastern side. The respondent-landlord filed petition for eviction as she wanted to open the shop on the western side as well. When there is already entry on the eastern side, eviction of the petitioners-tenant only to open the shop towards western side cannot be said to be reasonable and bona-fide. The respondent-landlord maintained that she wanted to remove both the kiosks on the western side but the requirement of the landlord could be satisfied in having only one kiosk rather than two. The respondent-landlord filed two suits for respective kiosks and both the suits were decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioners-tenant argued that the respondent-landlord purchased the disputed premise with a sitting petitioners-tenant and she fully knew that the kiosks were on rent with the petitioners-tenant even at the time of purchase by the respondent-landlord. Learned counsel for petitioners-tenant, in support of his argument, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 718, Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 and M.S. Zahed Vs. K. Raghavan, (1999) 1 SCC 439.