KAILASH CHANDRA GOPAL KRISHNA Vs. PRAHALAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 6 and 9(i) (j) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara which was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 28.05.2013. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara vide order dated 11.08.2015. The writ petition has been preferred against both the impugned orders.

(2.) While praying for setting aside the impugned orders, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have wrongly accepted the bonafide plea of the respondentlandlord. Respondent - Prahalad Rai and his wife have the share capital of Rs. 15 lakhs in M/s Parmeshwary India Pvt. Ltd.. The wife of the respondent is the Director of the company. Hence, it is impossible to believe that the respondent is an employee at M/s Parmeshwary India Pvt. Ltd. and that too under his younger brother. Secondly, the business is joint, hence, the evidence of PW-2 - Ladulal Baheti - father of the respondent Prahalad Rai is relevant in which he has categorically admitted that they are living together and sharing the kitchen. Ladulal Baheti also admitted that they have 12 shops at Arya Samaj Road. Therefore, the bonafide plea is totally false and a sham. Third, the courts below wrongly concluded that the petitioner has alternative premises because the alleged shop-cum-godown No.22 is in the name of Ms. Satya Narayan Rakesh Kumar. The same is rented to the firm and as per Ex.7, it is the property of an individual, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the firm has alternative premises. Fourth, the plea of the respondent - landlord that there was oral partition in the family cannot be accepted as no detail of the property in the share of the respective members of the family has been placed on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent - landlord submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the concurrent finding of the facts. The shop was rented to the petitioner - tenant in 1974. The first suit for eviction was filed in 1994 but was withdrawn with liberty after the introduction of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001 and the present suit was filed immediately thereafter in the year 2003 itself on the ground of bonafide necessity and availability of alternative accommodation to the tenant. It was further contended that the petitioner - tenant cannot raise the question of title and neither the same can be looked into in an eviction petition and the ownership as well as bonafide necessity of the respondent - landlord have been established from the evidence on record. The availability of the alternative accommodation available to the tenant also stands proved. Whereas, the respondent - landlord does not have any other property in his name.