Lokesh Kumar Singh @APPELLANT@Hash Yogendra Sharma

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘tenant) against the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the appeal filed by the respondents

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘landlords’) against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, was allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that the landlords filed an eviction application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be

referred as ‘Act of 2001’) against the tenant on the grounds of personal and bonafide need and material alteration and also on the grounds of

nuisance. The tenant filed reply to the eviction application and denied the averments made in the said application.

The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as four issues for consideration. The landlords in support of their

case produced as many as five witnesses namely PW1 Yogendra, PW2 Rupendra, PW3 Vinod, PW4 Durgesh and PW5 Manoj and also produced

documents Ex.1 to Ex.8 and got the same exhibited. The tenant produced three witnesses namely DW1 Lokesh, DW2 Puran Chand & DW3 Krishan

Kumar and also produced documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and got the same exhibited. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 23.08.2012 dismissed

the eviction application filed by the landlords.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2012 the landlords filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan and the learned

Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.09.2015 allowed the appeal filed by the landlords. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by

the tenant against the judgment dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur.

Counsel for the tenant submitted that at the time of filing of the eviction application both the respondents were pursuing their studies, however

during pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the respondent no.1 got appointment on account of death of his father. Counsel further

submits that the respondent no.2 also got a job in ICICI Bank, therefore the finding given by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on issue no.2 regarding

bonafide and reasonable need of the landlords is perverse. Counsel further submits that under the changed circumstances there is no personal and

bonafide need of the landlords for the shop in dispute as both were employed subsequently and the subsequent events are required to be taken into

consideration and the bonafide and reasonable need of the landlords which was existing on the date of filing of the eviction application is not now

existing in the changed circumstances. In support of the contentions, counsel for the tenant relied upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thyabally Rasuljee (Dead) through Lrs., reported in 1995(1) SCC 410.

Counsel further relied upon the judgment in the matter of Hasmat Rai and others Vs. Raghunath Prasad, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1711.

Counsel for the landlords submitted that the landlords have pleaded in their eviction application that both the applicants are pursuing their studies and

the shop in dispute is needed to start their business. Counsel further submits that one of the respondent got employment in place of his father as his

father died during pendency of the eviction application and other applicant i.e. respondent no.2 also got employment after completing his studies in a

private bank and the same is not of permanent in nature. Counsel further submits that such an employment cannot be said to be permanent in nature.

Counsel further submits that the landlords still want to start their business from the shop in dispute as their shop is situated at the prime location in the

main market at Raja Park in the Jaipur City. Counsel further submits that the landlord is the best judge to choose and the place and business as per his

own choice. He further submits that the respondent no.2 wants to start the business as his job is not of permanent in nature.

In support of the contentions, counsel for the landlords relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shamshad

Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others, reported in 2008(9) SCC 1, in which in paras-36,37 & 38 it has been held as under :-

“36. A finding as to bona fide requirement for doing readymade garments business by Matloob Ahmad has been expressly recorded by the

appellant authority. The said finding was a finding of fact. Neither could it have been interfered with, nor has it been set aside by the writ court. In

view of the above position, the High Court was wrong in allowing the writ petition.

As observed earlier, statutory remedy has beenprovided under the Act against an order passed by the prescribed authority by filing an appeal

before the District Judge (Section 22). There is no further remedy under the Act. The tenant, in the circumstances, approached the High Court by

filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in

relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court

does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a

subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the

inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts

and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.â€​

Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi,

reported in 2016(10) SCC 209, in which in para- 12 it has been held as under :-

“12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premises were lying vacant for

running business of respondent's son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja2 to hold that it is perfectly open to the

landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to

which shop her son should start the business from.â€​

Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maganlal Vs. Nanasaheb, reported in (2008)

13 SCC 758 in which in para-16 it has been held as under:-

“16. This Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v.Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors.MANU/SC/2480/2005 :AIR2006SC770 held that it is

always a prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business, this is no ground to say

that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad, therefore, it is not genuine need. Further, it is held that it is not the

tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to

choose the nature of the business and the place of the business.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The first argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding perverse finding given by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the issue no.2

relating to bonafide and reasonable need of the landlords is not accepted as the Appellate Rent Tribunal has given its finding on the basis of the

evidence adduced by the parties and in my considered view the Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding regarding bonafide and

personal need of the landlords for the shop in dispute as the landlords have specifically pleaded in their eviction application that they want to start their

business from the shop in dispute.

The second argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding consideration of subsequent events, in my considered view, would not help

the tenant because the respondent no.2 is serving in a private bank and his job is not of permanent in nature and when the landlords have specifically

pleaded in their eviction application that they want to start their business from the disputed shop therefore in my view it is for the landlord to choose

the business or service or occupation and not for the tenant to dictate the landlord what he should do and what he should not.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the finding of bonafide and

reasonable need for the business by the landlords has been recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the said finding being finding of fact, I am not

inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad (supra), secondly the

landlord is the best judge to decide and choose the place for starting his business in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa (supra), thirdly it is for the landlord to choose the business or service or occupation and not for the tenant to

dictate the landlord what he should do and what he should not in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Maganlal (supra).

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of.