Tulsi Ram vs Ramraksh Pal and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.2.08 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s. 19 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ("the Act") against the order dated 24.1.06 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, dismissing the petition preferred by the respondent-landlord under Section 9 of the Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises, has been allowed and accordingly, the petitioner-tenant is directed to be evicted from the premises in question.

The respondent-landlord filed a petition u/s. 9 of the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the rented premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The petition was contested by the petitioner-tenant 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 respondent-landlord is not proved and therefore, the petition seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant was dismissed.

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 stands reversed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, after due consideration of the evidence on record, while allowing the appeal by the order impugned, the petitioner-tenant is directed to be evicted from the premises in question. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has misread the evidence which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that a landlord while seeking eviction of tenant is not only required to prove reasonableness of the necessity but also that the necessity as pleaded is bona fide. Learned counsel submitted that the aspect of the comparative hardship has not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at a categorical finding that alternative accommodation is available to the respondent-landlord and therefore, the necessity as pleaded does not appear to be bona fide, however, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, has been reversed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, without recording any cogent reasons. Learned counsel urged that a tenant cannot be evicted unless reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord is established on the basis of cogent evidence on record and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, ignoring the evidence on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal regarding availability of alternative accommodation available to the landlord, was based on misreading of the evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that respondent-landlord has nowhere deposed before the Rent Tribunal that yet another shop is available to him yet, the Rent Tribunal reading something in his statement recorded, which is not there, recorded the finding regarding availability of the alternative accommodation, which is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has reversed the finding after recording the reasons, which 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.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

Indisputably, the reasonable and bona fide requirement was pleaded by the respondent-landlord in terms that his son Piyush, holding the qualification of MCA and another son, who is pursuing the studies of BE (IT) intend to start business of the computer in the premises in question and there is no other alternative accommodation available which could satisfy their need.

After consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal recorded the finding that as per the evidence of the respondent-landlord himself, yet another vacant shop adjacent to the disputed shop is in his possession and therefore, the necessity as pleaded cannot be said to be bona fide. That apart, the Rent Tribunal observed that a vacant plot ad measuring 20x30 sq. ft. is available with the landlord and therefore, the same can be used by the landlord for intended business of his sons.

A perusal of the cross examination of the respondent-landlord Ramrakshpal (PW 1) before the Rent Tribunal reveals that he has never deposed that an alternative vacant shop is available to him adjacent to the premises in question. Thus, apparently, the Rent Tribunal has read something in the statement of the landlord-Ramrakshpal, which is not there. Merely because, the landlord is in possession of a vacant plot, he cannot be compelled to incur the expenditure and raise construction thereon so as to make the suitable premises available to his sons for their business. It is well settled 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. In this view of the matter, the necessity of the premises in question for the purpose of business of the sons of the landlord having been established on the basis of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal was not justified in denying the relief on the ground of availability of alleged alternative accommodation, which by no means can be construed to be an alternative accommodation available for the intended purpose. The question regarding comparative hardship is not required to be gone into in terms of provisions of Section 9(i) of the Act and therefore, there was no occasion for the Appellate Rent Tribunal to examine the question of comparative hardship as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner.

A perusal of the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal reveals that the evidence on record has been considered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in its entirety and objectivity and the findings arrived at in terms that the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded by the respondent-landlord stands proved, 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.

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

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