Kishoremal vs Madan Singh

Sangeet Lodha, J.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 19.7.13 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s. 19 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ("the Act") against the order dated 15.4.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, dismissing the petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent from the rented premises, stands dismissed.

The petitioner-landlord filed a petition u/s. 9 and 6 of the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement as also for recovery and revision of rent. The petition was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto.

After due consideration of the evidence on record and the rival submissions, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded by the landlord is not proved and therefore, the petition seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant was dismissed. However, a petition for revision of the rent was allowed and the rent of the premises has been assessed at Rs. 512/- per month with the enhancement @ 5% per annum in terms of provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition seeking eviction of the tenant, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal regarding reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises has been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in affirming the findings of the Rent Tribunal on issue No. 2 regarding reasonable and bona fide necessity. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record has not been considered by the Rent Tribunal as also Appellate Rent Tribunal in correct perspective, which has resulted in an erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner''s son Umraomal, who is engaged in business of stationery at Bangalore, intends to close his existing business and start the business of motor parts at Jodhpur and therefore, the requirement as pleaded was absolutely bona fide. Learned counsel submitted that no other shop is available with the petitioner wherein the petitioner''s son can carry on his business. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner''s son intends to settle at Jodhpur so that he may take care of his old aged parents. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his need and therefore, the tenant cannot permitted to suggest as to what is suitable for the landlord and therefore, the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the needs of the landlord should always be adjudged by the standard considered adequate by the landlord; neither the tenant can suggest as to what is suitable for the landlord nor the court can sit in judgment on the choice of the landlord. But then, the landlord has to establish that the requirement of premises as pleaded by him is bona fide.

In the instant case, on the basis of the evidence on record, it stands established that the petitioner''s son Umraomal is engaged in business of paper and stationery at Bangalore for last 20 years. It is to be noticed that in the petition filed, it is stated that the business of Umraomal at Bangalore is not going on well and therefore, he intends to come to Jodhpur and start a business of motor parts.

It has come on record that the petitioner-landlord Kishoremal, has four sons and out of them, three sons Nilamchand, Sanjay Kumar and Umraomal are settled at Bangalore. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had filed two more petitions before the Rent Tribunal, seeking eviction of the tenant from two more shops on the ground of reasonable bona fide necessity of the premises for his son Sanjay Kumar and Nilamchand, who are also carrying on business at Bangalore. The petition filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants-Sohan Lal and another for the bona fide necessity of his son Sanjay Kumar, also stands dismissed by the Rent Tribunal and aggrieved thereby, the writ petition being No. 932/15, preferred by the petitioner, which stands dismissed by this court by a separate order, today.

As noticed hereinabove, in the petition seeking eviction of the tenant filed, the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the premises in question is pleaded by the petitioner in terms that the stationery business of his son Umraomal at Bangalore is not going on well and therefore, he intends to come to Jodhpur and start the business of motor parts in the shop sought to be evicted. The stand taken in the petition as aforesaid is reiterated by the landlord-Kishoremal (PW 1) and his son-Umraomal (PW 2) in the affidavits filed before the Rent Tribunal. But then, during the cross examination before the Rent Tribunal, Umraomal (PW 2) has deposed that he manages the business of his wife and also employed at some other place. It is deposed that his wife is carrying on business in the name of M/s. Million Agency and he is employed at BM Paper Agency. He has further stated that he is an income tax payer, but he is not aware about the income tax deposited in the preceding year. He also pleaded ignorance regarding the fact as to whether his wife is income tax payer or not as also regarding the annual turn over of M/s. Million Agency. It is deposed that except him, nobody else is looking after the business of M/s. Million Agency. The working hours are disclosed to be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. It is pertinent to note that the facts regarding Umraomal being engaged in business of stationery with his wife is neither disclosed in the petition filed nor in his affidavit filed before the Rent Tribunal. Be that as it may, in the cross examination, he has also admitted that in the year 2006, he had disclosed annual income a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-. He further stated that apart from the income from salary, he is also earning from commission business. On being pointedly asked about the annual turn over of M/s. Million Agency, he responded in terms that he has not asked about it to his wife whereas, as per his deposition, he is looking after the business of M/s. Million Agency and nobody else is engaged therein.

It is pertinent to note that the landlord-Kishoremal in his deposition has stated that the petitioner''s son-Umraomal was never engaged in the business of motor parts and he has no experience of the business. However, Umraomal (PW 2) in his deposition has stated that earlier he was engaged in the business of motor parts with his father at Jodhpur.

Suffice it to say that the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner suffers from apparent contradictions and on the evidence on record, it is not established that the stationery business of the petitioner is not going on well at Bangalore rather, the evidence on record leads to the conclusion that Umraomal with his wife are carrying on a settled business of stationery at Bangalore. In this view of the matter, the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises as pleaded by the petitioner-landlord, is not established on the basis of any cogent evidence on record.

A perusal of the orders impugned reveals that the evidence on record has been considered by the Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Rent Tribunal in its entirety and objectivity and the concurrent findings arrived at in terms that the requirement of the premises as pleaded by the petitioner is not reasonable and bona fide, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse, so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It is to be noticed that this petition questioning the order dated 19.7.13 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal has been filed by the petitioner before this court on 26.2.15 i.e. after a lapse of about more than 1 1/2 years, however, no explanation explaining the delay is set out in the petition filed and therefore, as a matter of fact, the petition suffers from vice of delay and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.

No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.