AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 13.10.17 of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Appeal No.119/13, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 26.4.13 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No.104/05, allowing the petition preferred on behalf of the respondent for eviction from a residential-cum-commercial premises, has been dismissed.
The respondent-landlord let out a room and a shop to the petitioner-tenant for monthly rent Rs.100/- in the year 1973. The respondent filed a petition for eviction inter alia on the grounds of the petitioner willfully causing substantial damage to the premises, the premises being in dilapidated condition, sub letting, reasonable and bona fide necessity and the respondent acquiring possession of alternative accommodation. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal allowed the petition on the ground of the respondent-tenant acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises. The remaining grounds raised by the respondent were not found proved.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have seriously erred in arriving at the finding that alternative accommodation is available to the petitioner at Gulmandi, Bhilwara. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had produced the evidence on record that the alternative premises alleged to have been acquired, was in possession of the petitioner's brother Mustak on the strength of the Will executed in his favour in the year 1998 and therefore, the petitioner was not in possession of the alternative accommodation.
It is pertinent to note that the petition seeking eviction was filed by the respondent-landlord against Idu, the father of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and accordingly, the grounds set out in the petition was that the tenant, the father of the petitioner, has acquired possession of alternative accommodation. It is noticed that in the reply to the petition filed, the factum of the father of the petitioner Idu acquiring the alternative accommodation was not disputed rather, it was stated that on account of huge loan, the property acquired has been mortgaged and the same is in possession of the mortgagee. It appears that during the pendency of the petition, Idu expired and therefore, the petitioner herein and his brother proforma respondent no.2 were substituted as respondents. Before the Rent Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant Roshan, the petitioner herein, was examined as witness. A perusal of his deposition reveals that the factum of purchase of the property by his father was not disputed, however, he deposed that the said property has been mortgaged by his younger brother. The name of the mortgagee was not disclosed by the respondent-tenant or the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings. No evidence was led to prove the factum of the property being mortgaged and thus, after due consideration of the evidence on record, the concurrent finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding the petitioner-tenant acquiring the alternative accommodation, 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.
In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.