MADAN LAL S/O SH. KALU RAM JI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O GOL PIYAU CHAURAHA, SHOP NO. 15, BHOPALGANJ, BHILWARA Vs. KANHAIYA LAL S/O SH. HARI SHANKAR JI DAULIYA, R/O G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition preferred under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Madan Lal (tenant) has approached this Court in order to assail the judgment (Annex.22)dated 9.11.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Control Case No.310/2004 titled as Smt.Nandu Devi Anr. Vs. Madanlal directing eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises as affirmed vide judgment (Annex.25) dated 5.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Appeal No.24/2014.

(2.) Facts in brief are noted herein below for the sake of ready reference:- Smt. Nandu Devi w/o late Shri Badrilal and Shri Kanhaiya Lal s/o late Shri Badrilal being the legal heirs of the landlord Shri Badri lal, filed an application under the Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises being a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as for bona fide and personal necessity. Facts preceding filing of the aforesaid eviction application have a material bearing on the controversy and are thus narrated herein after.

(3.) A suit for injunction came to be filed by the petitioner Madan Lal against Badrilal (since deceased) alleging inter alia that cabin no.15 situated to the south of Gole Piau, Bhilwara was allotted to Badrilal by the Municipal Board, Bhilwara who in turn constructed a shop thereupon which was let out to Madan Lal for a rent of Rs.150.00 per month. The rent was raised to Rs.300.00 per month in the year 1974 and to Rs.400.00 per month in the year 1987. The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against the landlord Badrilal who was allegedly attempting to evict Madan Lal from rented premises by force and without taking recourse of the lawful procedure. Badrilal contested the suit with a plea in the written statement that no relation of landlord and tenant existed between him and Madan Lal. It was asserted that the shop was given to Madan Lal on contract basis from 7.5.1987 onwards for a consideration of Rs.500.00 per month. Badrilal further claimed that as the shop had been given on contract basis, failure of the lessee to pay consideration of Rs.500.00 per month gave him a right to resume possession thereof. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit premises was let out to him by the defendant on the last rent of Rs.400.00 per month. The trial Court also repelled the plea of the defendant that the shop in question had been given to the plaintiff on contract at a consideration of Rs.500.00 per month. The suit came to be rejected by judgment dated 13.1.1999. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff Madan Lal against the said judgment which was rejected by the appellate Court on 3.3.2003. The plaintiff Madan Lal approached this Court by way of second appeal no.115/2003 challenging the aforesaid two judgments. By that time, Badrilal had passed away and thus, his legal representatives (the respondents herein) were impleaded as party respondents in the second appeal which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 3.12.2003 in the following terms:-