2013 Supreme(Raj) 642
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Ghanshyam - Appellant
Versus
Srikrishna Bhati and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7761 of 2012.
Decided On : 18-01-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner-Tenant:Sudheer Sharma, Advocate.
The landlord's bonafide need for the premises is a finding of fact, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's business decisions.
Headnote:
Bonafide Necessity - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - [Section 13(1)(ff), Section 13(2)(ii)] - The court affirmed the eviction decree based on the landlord's bonafide need for the shop, emphasizing that the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's business decisions. The court cited various judgments to support the landlord's discretion in determining his need for the premises.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed a writ petition against the eviction order, arguing that the landlord did not have a bonafide need for the shop as he had rented out another shop. The court found that the landlord's need was genuine and affirmed the eviction decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord's bonafide need was a finding of fact and affirmed the eviction decree based on the landlord's discretion in determining his business need.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landlord had a bonafide need for the shop, despite renting out another shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's business decisions and cited various judgments to support the landlord's discretion in determining his need for the premises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's writ petition and affirmed the eviction decree, ordering the tenant to hand over possession of the shop to the landlord.
JUDGMENT
1. (Oral) - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant Ghanshyam being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Civil Rent Appeal No.80/2008- Ghanshyam v. Srikrishna Bhati whereby the learned lower appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner - tenant Ghanshyam and affirmed the judgment and eviction decree dated 23.7.2008 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Rent Petition No.232/2005 - Sri Krishna Bhati v. Ghanshyam whereby the learned Rent Tribunal had allowed the application of the respondent - landlord for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of the respondent - landlord in respect of suit shop situated at Ward No.54, New Army, Family Quarters, Ajmer Road, Jodhpur.
2. By concurrent decrees of eviction, the learned Tribunals below had allowed the application for eviction filed by the landlord - respondent in respect of suit shop. The need claimed by the respondent landlord Sri Kishan Bhati was for his two sons Manish Bhati and Prashant Bhati.
3. Both the Tribunals below have found that the respondent - landlord had bonafide need for the suit shop in question and therefore, directed eviction under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant Mr. Sudheer Sharma submitted that the respondent - landlord did not have bonafide need inasmuch as the landlord has given another shop on rent to another tenant and if the landlord was in need of the suit shop, he would not have given the other vacant shop on rent to a third party.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner - tenant has no force. The finding of bonafide need of the landlord is a finding of fact.
6. It has been well settled by umpteen number of judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of which are referred below that the tenant cannot dictate the terms as to how the landlord should adjust his need and whether he should do particular business in the particular manner or at a particular place or not.
7. The landlord is the best judge of his need in this regard. It is for the landlord and his sons to decide as to what business they are going to set up in the disputed premises. The findings regarding bonafide need of the landlord are findings of facts and unless they are palpably wrong and perverse, they do not require any interference by this Court in the second appeal.
8. The tenant is not the best judge of the need of the landlord, but on the other hand, the respondent - landlord himself is the best judge of his business need and tenant cannot dictate terms in this regard. In this regard, following judgments may be referred to:
(i) 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 - Denzil Nagrath v. LRs. of Balwant Singh
(ii) SB CSA NO.132/2009 - LRs. of Prakash v. Poornima decided on 11.5.2011.
(iii) SBCSA No.174/2006 - Abdul Salam v. Arvind Kumar decided on 17.1.2009
(iv) SBCSA No.159/2005 - Raj Kumar v. Shevi Bai decided on 22.1.2009 reported in 2009 (3) RLW 2663.
(v) SBCSA No.203/2010 - Om Prakash Bhati v. LRs. of Har Kanwar decided on 11.8.2011.
9. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms:
"5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bonafide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how a
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
