Sumit Manchanda vs Appellate Rent Tribunal

Alok Sharma, J.—This petition purporting to be a composite one under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but apparently one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the judgment dated 29.10.2012, passed by the Appellant Rent Tribunal, Kota setting aside the judgment dated 23.01.2007, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota, dismissing the respondent-landlord''s (hereinafter "the landlord") eviction petition on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity and instead directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter "the tenant") and issuing a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord.

The facts of the case are that the landlord filed an application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act of 2001") for revision of rent as also for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted shop. The Rent Tribunal even while holding that the landlord was entitled to revision of rent, dismissed his prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity primarily on the ground that the landlord admittedly a resident of Baran, could not reasonably and bona fidely require a shop at Kota which was on rent with the tenant. The Rent Tribunal further noted that even otherwise the case set up by the landlord was not credible of belief as the landlord sought to set up a furniture shop in the tenanted premises, yet admittedly as per his own statement before the Rent Tribunal as also that of his witnesses, he had no such previous experience. Another fact which prevailed with the Rent Tribunal was in dismissing the prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity was that in the building where the tenanted premises was situate, the family members of the landlord had earlier sold two shops and if at all the landlord had required a place for his business, those shops would not have been sold. On these three grounds, bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord was found wanting and the eviction was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal.

The landlord carried the matter in appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 before the Appellant Rent Tribunal, Kota. On consideration of the matter, the Appellate Rent Tribunal found that from the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal had misdirected itself in taking into consideration the purported inconvenience of the landlord in travelling 75 to 80 km from his current residence in Baran to Kota to do business. It was also held that the Rent Tribunal had erred in overlooking the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. M/s. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co., wherein it was held that it was not necessary for the landlord to have prior experience for the commencement of any business. On the issue of third ground which prevailed with the Rent Tribunal in dismissing the eviction petition, i.e. that the family members of the landlord had earlier sold two shops in the very same building where the tenanted premises were situate, the Appellate Rent Tribunal held that for one the said shops were sold much prior to the laying of the eviction petition in the year 2003 and further in any event the sale of the shops by the family members of the landlord could not entail the landlord being denied his prayer for vacation of the tenanted shop for his own bona fide and reasonable necessity. In these circumstances, the Appellate Rent Tribunal set aside the judgment dated 23.01.2007, passed by the Rent Tribunal to the extent of dismissal of the prayer for eviction of the tenant. Hence this petition.

Mr. R.P. Garg, appearing for the tenant submits that from the evidence on record it was established that the landlord had a residential house in Pratap Chowk, Baran and further that there was a shop on the ground floor thereof from where the landlord used to carry out his business in the name and style of "Galav Traders". Counsel submits that in the reply to the eviction petition it was so specifically asserted and there being on rejoinder to the said assertion the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought to have construed it to be an admission of the landlord running a shop in the name and style of "Galav Traders" from the ground floor of his house in Pratap Chowk, Baran. Counsel submitted that it is inconceivable that any person would travel 75-80 km one way each day from Baran to do business in another place i.e. Kota. Counsel further submits that in the circumstances there was no good cause with the Appellate Rent Tribunal in upsetting and setting aside the conclusion of the Rent Tribunal that the eviction of tenanted shop sought was a mere desire of the landlord and not his bona fide and reasonable necessity. Thus the judgment dated 29.10.2012, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal be set aside and that of the Rent Tribunal dismissing the eviction petition of the landlord to the extent of eviction of the tenant be restored.

Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. Sachin Mittal, for the landlord would submit that the Appellate Rent Tribunal is the final court of fact and had the authority to re-appreciate the evidence for determination of the question of the landlord''s bonafide and reasonable necessity. Sr. Counsel submits that the reasoning of the Appellate Rent Tribunal is within its jurisdiction and even otherwise solid inasmuch as each of the reasons propounded by the Rent Tribunal dismissing the eviction petition has been squarely dealt with by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Sr. Counsel further submits that the case set up before the Rent Tribunal on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity for tenanted shop had been casually negated merely on the ground of perceived inconvenience of the landlord in travelling 75-80 km each day from Baran, the place of his current residence to the place of intended work i.e. tenanted shop at Kota. It is submitted that the landlord on record of the evidence stated that once the tenanted shop were to be vacated and business commenced therefrom by him, he would either build a residential quarter over the shop or otherwise obtain a place on rent. It has been further submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragunath G. Panhale (Supra) rightly concluded that prior experience was not necessary for commencement of business by a landlord from the tenanted premises subsequent to the tenant''s eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. It was further submitted that the case set up by the tenant in defence to the eviction petition with regard to the landlord doing business in the name and style of "Galav Traders" from the ground floor of his parental house in Baran was also rightly negated by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the ground that no documentary evidence in support of the case was set up and the case was founded upon mere ipse dixit of the tenant. It has been further submitted that even the other witnesses appearing for the tenant before the Rent Tribunal had categorically stated that they had filed their affidavits-in-evidence not on the basis of their own knowledge, but on the askance of the landlord. Sr. Counsel submits that aside of the aforesaid, the earlier sale of the two shops in the building where the tenanted shop is situate by the family members of the landlord was of no relevance whatsoever and more than one count (i) that the said shops were sold much prior to the laying of the eviction petition in 2003 and (ii) that the landlord in spite of his relationship with the owners of the said shops, had no legal right to demand that the said shops to be given out to him under a tenancy or otherwise to enable him to do business. It has been submitted that in these circumstances there is no occasion to interfere with the well considered judgment dated 29.10.2012 and certificate of possession issued by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in favour of the landlord.

Heard the counsel for the parties and considered.

The jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the findings of fact is indeed too well defined to be reiterated. A finding of bona fide and reasonable necessity is a finding of fact. The only conceivable ground for a court exercising its power either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or even for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be where the findings are perverse on the evidence on record and could not have been at all arrived at. In the aforesaid context a bare look at the facts of the case would indicate that the landlord at the time of laying of the eviction petition was 23 years old and unemployed. Kota is a city much larger than Baran and offered better business prospects. The landlord was found by the Rent Tribunal itself to be an owner of the property devolving on him on the death of his grandmother. In these circumstances the requirement of the landlord for the tenanted shop and have it vacated for his own bona fide and reasonable necessity cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be unjustified. The reasoning of the Rent Tribunal for negating the case of the landlord for the vacation of the tenanted premises i.e. on the ground of the purported inconvenience of the landlord in travelling from Baran to Kota overlooked the fact that the landlord had categorically stated in his evidence before the Rent Tribunal that on the shop being vacated he would either build a residential quarter over it or otherwise obtain a tenanted premises. The question of inconvenience of the landlord which prevailed with the Rent Tribunal in negating the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord was thus completely misdirected and rightly corrected by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Aside of the aforesaid, it is well settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the question as to where the landlord seeks to commence his business is matter in his discretion and except in situations where the purported choice of landlord is palpably incredible, the court should abide therewith. Reliance can be had to the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., as also Mohd. Ayub and Another Vs. Mukesh Chand, . Further as far as the landlord allegedly doing business from the shop in his parental house in Pratap Chowk, Baran is concerned, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly held that it was an assertion based on ipse dixit of the tenant and there was no documentary evidence such as the record of any statutory authorities such as under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Municipality Act or in Value Added Tax Act to establish that the landlord was indeed doing business from a shop on the ground floor of his residential house at Baran. I am also of the considered view that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly corrected the misapprehension of the Rent Tribunal that to start a shop, previous experience was essential. The view of the Rent Tribunal was in the cross-hairs of the Hon''ble Apex Court''s view on the point as in Ragunath G. Panhale (Supra). The Rent Tribunal''s view thus could not be sustained.

I am therefore of the considered view that the finding of the Appellate Rent Tribunal as a final court of fact that the tenanted premises required by the landlord were for his bona fide and reasonable necessity cannot be interfered with by this Court.

At this stage Mr. Agarwal Sr. Counsel submits that he does not seek to defend the judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal finding a ground of eviction also for reason of the petitioner-tenant having denied to respondent-landlord''s title.

In the circumstances thus obtaining, I find on force in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.

Stay application also dismissed.