2013 Supreme(Raj) 768
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Madan Lal S/o Loku Mal - Appellant
Versus
Champa Lal S/o Kishan Lal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11741/2012.
Decided On : 7-02-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner-tenant:J.R. Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondent-landlord:Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arpit Bhoot, Advocate.
The landlord is the best judge of his needs, and the findings of facts by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding the bonafide need for the suit premises were binding on the court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
EVICTION SUIT - LANDLORD'S BONAFIDE NEED - REASONABLENESS - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS - RATIO DECIDENDI
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-tenant, Madan Lal, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, which allowed the landlord's appeal and reversed the judgment of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, rejecting the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord, Champa Lal. The landlord sought eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit premises, known as 'Madho Das Bhawan,' on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide necessity for his son, Mafat Lal, to set up a hotel and restaurant and for himself to establish an 'Ayurvedic Hospital.'
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Rent Tribunal's findings of bonafide need for the landlord and his family members were based on cogent reasons and evidence. The court found that the landlord's need for setting up a hotel and restaurant, jointly taken with the need for an 'Ayurvedic Hospital,' required a large space or accommodation, and the petitioner-tenant could not dictate terms regarding the size or location of the establishments. The court also held that the landlord was the best judge of his needs and that the findings of facts by the Appellate Rent Tribunal were binding on the court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in reversing the findings of the Rent Tribunal and finding that the landlord's need for the suit premises was bonafide and reasonable. 2. Whether the landlord's need for setting up a hotel and restaurant, jointly taken with the need for an 'Ayurvedic Hospital,' required a large space or accommodation, and the petitioner-tenant could dictate terms regarding the size or location of the establishments.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Appellate Rent Tribunal's findings of bonafide need for the landlord and his family members were based on cogent reasons and evidence. The court found that the landlord's need for setting up a hotel and restaurant, jointly taken with the need for an 'Ayurvedic Hospital,' required a large space or accommodation, and the petitioner-tenant could not dictate terms regarding the size or location of the establishments. 2. The court also held that the landlord was the best judge of his needs and that the findings of facts by the Appellate Rent Tribunal were binding on the court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant and upheld the eviction decree granted by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur. The petitioner-tenant was directed to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord within six months and to pay mesne profits for use and occupation till the vacant and peaceful possession was handed over.
JUDGMENT :
1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant, Madan Lal S/o Lokumal Nathani under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondent-landlord, Champa Lal S/o Kishan Lal, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2012 of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur allowing landlord's Appeal No.103/2008- Champa Lal v. Madan Lal and reversed the judgment and order of learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 18.09.2008 in Eviction Case No.24/2005- Champa Lal v. Madan Lal whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord, seeking eviction of tenant, Madan Lal from the suit premises, known as 'Madho Das Bhawan" situated at Ummed Hospital Road, Jodhpur, came to be rejected.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit premises (four rooms were let-out to the petitioner-tenant situated on the first floor of the suit premises) known as "Madho Das Bhawan" owned by the landlord, Champa Lal, and the same was initially let-out to the defendant-tenant Madan Lal on 28.10.1986 for a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-, which rent later on was increased w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to Rs. 700/- per month; and thereafter upon enforcement of new Rent Control Act, 2001, was further increased to Rs. 1575/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The defendanttenant failed to pay the said rent after 01.03.2002 and, therefore, the landlord approached the Rent Tribunal for eviction of the defendanttenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and, so also, bonafide necessity of the suit premises for his son, namely, Mafat Lal to setup a hotel and restaurant in the said premises besides setting up of an "Ayurvedic Hospital" for himself and his son, since the landlord- Champa Lal, was a qualified Ayurvedic Doctor. The said building "Madho Das Bhawan" is a large building in which 2-3 tenants occupied the said building, however, the other tenants had either left the said premises as their own or were evicted through the court process. The dispute in the present writ petition is only for one portion of four rooms, occupied by the defendant-tenant for his residential purposes. The respondent-landlord claimed that he has retired from the Government services on 28.02.1993 and, therefore, he needed the suit premises for his own bonafide need and he also want to settle his younger son, namely, Mafat Lal, qualified as M. Com and her daughter-in-law, namely, Smt. Mala Rakhecha, qualified as B.Com. by setting up a hotel and restaurant business for them in the said building including the suit premises since the same is situated or a busy on main road opposite Ummed Hospital Road, Jodhpur.
3. The learned Rent Tribunal, however, dismissed the eviction petition vide its judgment order dated 18.09.2008 by finding that near the suit premises- "Madho Das Bhawan", there is a vacant/empty plot of land, owned by the landlord, measuring 50'x50'ft. and there, the landlord can construct a new building for satisfying such need of the family members including himself. The respondent-landlord being aggrieved by the same, went up in appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal under section 19 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, and the said appeal No.103/2008- Champa Lal v. Madan Lal , came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal by the impugned judgment and eviction decree dated 23.08.2012, aggrieved with which, the defendant-tenant has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court on 30.10.2012.
4. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Arpit Bhoot, had entered Caveat on behalf of respondent-landlord and Mr. J.R. Patel, represents the petitioner-tenant and by agreement of both the counsels, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage itself.
5. Mr. J.R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted the following contentions:
(i) That the need of the landlord an
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
