HARIMOHAN BANSAL SON OF SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BANSAL Vs. SEDURAM CHOUDHARY SON OF SHRI RAMSAHAY JI CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 07.10.2016. Thereby the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') was directed to vacate the tenanted premises and a certificate of possession in favour of the respondent-landlord (hereinafter 'landlord') issued on account of his eviction petition based on the bona fide and reasonable necessity of his son having been allowed.

(2.) Counsel for the tenant submitted that from the evidence on record it was established that the landlord had let out two other shops in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively. He submitted that had there been any bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for his son's business he would not have so done and instead would have required his son to commence business therefrom. It was submitted that the Tribunal as also the Rent Appellate Tribunal did not focus on the tenant's evidence destructive of the landlord's case of bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop. Counsel for the tenant further submitted that from the evidence on record, it was clear that the landlord also had several shops in the city of Jaipur and there was no occasion for the Rent Tribunal to find bona fide and particularly reasonable necessity for the landlord's son for his business in respect of the tenanted shop. In this view of the matter, the Rent Tribunal having over-looked and not considered evidence beneficial to the tenant, its findings are perverse and the Rent Appellate Tribunal has compounded the perversity by affirming the Tribunal's judgment.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Krishnaveer Singh counsel for the respondent submitted that the eviction petition was filed in 201 When a shop was earlier given out in rent by the landlord in 2004, his son Mukesh whose bona fide and reasonable need was articulated in the petition was a minor. And in 2008 when the other shop was rented out by the landlord, Mukesh was in college. Mukesh the landlord's son graduated in 2009 and married in 2010. He was unemployed and hence sometime in 2011 the need of the tenant shop for Mukesh was felt. The intent was setting up a spare parts and lubricants store in the tenanted shop by Mukesh to complement his father's car garage adjacent to the tenanted shop for maintenance and service of cars/vehicles. Hence the eviction petition was filed in 201 It was submitted that despite the tenant's allegation of other vacant shops being available with the landlord, in his evidence this was not established. Instead they were all found to be on rent. And from the evidence of the landlord juxtaposed to that of the tenant, the landlord's bona fide and reasonable necessity as set up before the Tribunal was made out.