M/s. Kailash Chandra Gopal Krishna @APPELLANT@Hash Prahalad Rai

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.

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

â€" Ladulal Baheti â€" 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 â€" 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.

Learned counsel for the respondent â€" 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 â€" 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 The first suit for eviction was filed in 1994 but was withdrawn with liberty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 â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" landlord does not have any other property in his name.

The evidence was perused and the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.

Petitioner â€" tenant â€" Gopal Krishna appeared as DW-1. A perusal of his cross-examination shows that he accepted that he is paying the rent to

Prahalad Rai as directed to him by Ladulal Baheti. Ladulal Baheti is the father of the respondent â€" Prahalad Rai. Hence, he treated him as

landlord. Thus, it is admitted by the petitioner â€" tenant himself that he was paying the rent to the respondent â€" landlord. This fact is further

corroborated by the cross-examination of the respondent â€" landlord, wherein he stated that he had become the owner by virtue of the partition.Â

The statement of respondent â€" landlord â€" Prahlad Rai was corroborated by Ladulal Baheti, father of the respondent landlord who appeared as

AW-2. He stated in no uncertain terms that the property in dispute was purchased by him but the same now does not belong to him and is now in

the name of his son. He admitted that oral partition had taken place. Even, Dinesh â€" the brother of the respondent â€" landlord appeared as

AW-3 and supported the statement of Prahalad Rai as well as of Ladulal Baheti by stating that the shop was owned by none else than Prahalad Rai

and admitted that the family partition had taken place. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the courts below that the respondent â€

landlord was entitled to file the eviction petition qua the shop in question on account of personal necessity.

The bonafide need too cannot be doubted just because his wife is the Director or he may have some shares in another Company. He cannot be

expected to remain idle without any work. Thus, he can always want to start his own business, especially when the said shop has fallen to his share

in pursuance to the oral partition of the family which stands proved by the statements of his father and brother corroborating the plea of oral

partition. No other shop is shown in the name of respondent Prahlad Rai. In any case, a tenant cannot dictate the landlord where and at which

place to do his business.Â

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the courts below qua the premises available with the petitioner â€

tenant is incorrect deserves to be rejected. It was alleged by the respondent â€" landlord that the petitioner â€" tenant is having a shop/Godown No.2

at Krishi Upaj Mandi in joint ownership and has 3 shops in Indira Market.

One shop had been purchased in the name of petitioner’s wife Sushila Devi.   A finding has been duly recorded by the courts below that as

per Ex.5, a sale deed has been executed by Suresh Lal and Jamna Lal in favour of Sushila Devi Somani w/o Gopal Krishan Somani, Kamal Kumar

Somani s/o Gopal Krishan Somani. As per the sale deed, a commercial Plot No.116E measuring 15 x 30 ft. has been purchased from Municipal

Council, Bhilwara under Indira Market Scheme of Municipal Council Bhilwara. As per Ex.6, a shop No.22 situated at Mandi Area has been allotted

in the name of Kailash Chander Gopal Krishan. Similarly, Ex.7 shows the purchase of one Talia measuring 190 x 20 ft., at Bhopalganj, Bhilwara.Â

Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the said finding either.

Moreover, the finding on the bonafide necessity is factual. It is well settled proposition of law that the concurrent findings of the fact regarding

bonafide requirement of the landlord should not be interfered with by the Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the

case of Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar and Bros. reported in AIR Sc 2730, the Apex Court while setting aside the judgment rendered by the

High Court observed that the High Court cannot act beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence with respect to the question relating to the

bonafide requirement being factual and did not give rise to another substantial question of law. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under :

“8. That apart, on merits, the only other question relates to the bona fide requirement of the appellant that does not give rise to any substantial

question of law. It is entirely a matter to be decided on an appreciation of the evidence. On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court it is

evident that it had interfered with a finding of fact arrived at by the Second Additional District Judge, Giridih in the first appeal on an appreciation of

the evidence. The High Court made an attempt to re-appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bona

fide requirement. In fact after a scanty discussion of the evidence, the High Court observed, “in this view of the matter, I find and hold that the

plaintiff miserably failed on factual aspect also to prove his bona fide necessity.â€Â The High Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating

the evidence on record.â€​

Hence, the interference by the Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ambica Prasad Vs. Md.

Alam & Anr. reported in 2015(3) Civil Court Cases 045 to contend that a person must show that he is the owner of the building before filing an

eviction petition. It is well settled proposition of law that for maintaining an eviction petition, the landlord need not be the owner himself and the

same can be filed by a person who is receiving the rent. As per definition of the landlord defined under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control

Act, 2001 “landlord†means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own

account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises

were let out to a tenant.

As discussed above, the respondent â€" landlord in the present case has satisfactorily proved that the said shop has fallen into his share in pursuance

to the oral partition but it is admitted by the petitioner himself that he was paying the rent to the respondent â€" Prahlad Rai. Hence, the judgment

rendered in the case of Dr. Ambica Prasad (supra) does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings of the courts below.

Dismissed accordingly.