RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. A D J BANSWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application seeking immediate order for ejectment of the tenants from the demised premises (Case No.1/1997: Old No. 10/1996) as made by the respondent No.3 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the applicant' / 'the landlord') on 10.06.1996 with reference to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' / 'the Act of 1950') came to be allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Banswara on 13.05.1997 making an order for ejectment of the tenants from the suit premises. The order so passed on 13.05.1997 was challenged by the tenants under Section 16(11) of the Act of 1950 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1/2005 that came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Banswara by the impugned order dated 15.12.2005. Aggrieved, the tenants in the first place preferred a regular first appeal (CFA No. 77/2006) that was dismissed by this Court on 12.05.2006 as being incompetent. The petitioners-tenants (the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3) have thereafter challenged the aforesaid orders dated 13.05.1997 and 15.12.2005 by way of this writ petition.

(2.) The relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter could be taken into comprehension thus: The respondent No.3 had been a member of the armed forces of the Union; and owns immovable property situated at Pipali Chowk, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Banswara, a part whereof had been let out to the petitioners. On 25.01.1993, the respondent No.3 moved an application (Annex. 1) under Section 16 of the Act of 1950 seeking the order for ejectment of the tenants from the premises in question on the grounds that after serving the Indian Navy, he had retired on 15.01.1976 from the post of Chief Electrician (Power); and that after retirement, for the purpose of subsistence, he took upon the engagement in National Engineering Industries Limited, Jaipur but retired therefrom in the month of August 1990 and thereafter, has settled at Banswara, his birth place. While stating the extent of properties held by him and the expanse of his family, said to be comprising of two sons, daughter-in-law, two daughters of the son, and two sons of the daughter, the applicant averred that his son Manoj had been carrying on business in one of the ground floor shops and the other shop was with the tenants; and that his other son was of marriageable age. The applicant alleged that he was finding it difficult to reside at the upper floor and thus, intended to use the demises premises for his residence after carrying out the necessary alterations. The applicant also produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Zila Sainik Board, Udaipur on 30.11.1992, certifying his bona fide requirement.

(3.) The application so moved by the respondent No.3 was put to contest by the tenants and came to be rejected by the District Magistrate, Banswara by his order dated 31.3.94 (Annex.3) essentially on the consideration that the applicant had retired on 15.1.76 and as per Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 1950, the application was required to be moved within one year; and the same having been filed after 16 years was barred by time. The learned District Magistrate also referred to the fact that the tenants had only 78 square feet of area with them that was about 8.73 percent of 892 square feet of the area available with the applicant; and so also to the report dated 26.7.93 as submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banswara and pointed out that there were no such comments that the tenants were definitely required to be evicted.