2015 Supreme(Raj) 1301
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Dr. Vijay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Baljeet Singh - Respondent
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13640 of 2014.
Decided On : 2-02-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Ajay Gupta, Advocate.
Headnote:A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 19 – Appeal was filed contending that the Appellate rent tribunal is the final court and its findings cannot interfere with that of the trial court – Held, appellate "is empowered to take evidence on record and come up with its own findings.
B. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 9(k) – Dental clinic run by the tenant was unused for six months – Rent tribunal rejected the electricity bill showing zero units consumed –Contended that the consumption level is Nil because of the defective meter, no application for rectification of the meter was made by the user – No signs of medical patients being treated at the dental clinic which was to be a primary objective of the place – Held, the Appellate rent tribunal was right in declaring the property as non-user in the favour of the landlord.
C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 3 DW – 2 contended that he had paid Rs.3700/– per month to a person working in the dental clinic, which was alleged to have been closed for six months – Held, the oral evidence of DW2 was uncorroborated and it is rejected.
D. Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 9(k) – court had to hear on the findings and allegation of the non user of property – Held, the the statements of the two tenants cannot be relied upon as both of them had past eminity for the landlord – Thus the statements of the two tenants is unreliable.
E. Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 9(k) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 3 and 60 Tenant produced letters, greeting cards, pamphlets in regard to the dental clinic that was the alleged to have been closed for six months – held, that such documents are not enough to convince that the clinic was working.
JUDGMENT
1. - This petition challenges the judgment dated 24.9.2014 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the judgment dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing the respondent landlord's (hereinafter 'the landlord') eviction petition under section 9(k) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') has been set aside and the eviction of the petitioner tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') directed while simultaneously issuing a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord.
2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the landlord filed an eviction petition on 1.2.2007 under section 9(k) of the Act of 2001 against the tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur stating that since 5.8.2004 the Dental Clinic of the tenant in the rented premises was closed (over two years) and consequently the tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of non-user for a continuous period of more than six months preceding the date of filing of the eviction petition. Inevitably on receipt of notice, a reply of denial was filed by the tenant. It was stated that the tenant was in regular use of tenanted premises for his business/ profession and the eviction petition was a mere abuse of the process of the Court in as much as the earlier suit for eviction filed by the landlord under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1950') on the ground of default, sub-letting and bona fide and reasonable necessity had been dismissed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 9.12.2003, as was the appeal there-against by the Addl. District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 5.8.2004. Albeit a second appeal under section 100 CPC at the instance of the landlord was pending before this Court. It was stated that the landlord was determined to somehow obstruct the use of tenanted premises and in-fact on an application made by the tenant before the Munsif (East) Jaipur vide order dated 30.5.1989 it was directed that the tenant be allowed to use and enjoy the tenanted premises and water connection thereto be restored /allowed without express consent of the landlord.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur framed two issues which loosely translated were:
1. As to whether the tenant had for a continuous period of over six months immediately preceding filing of the eviction petition not used the tenanted premises for the purpose they were let out for, without there being a reasonable cause; and
2. As to whether by non-user of the tenanted premises they had fallen into disrepair and thus been materially altered supplying the landlord an additional ground for the tenant's eviction.
4. The landlord examined himself as PW1 before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and filed seven documents as Ex.1 to 7 which were bills of the Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter 'the JWNL') evidencing 0' consumption of electricity in the tenanted premises for more than six months preceding the filing of the eviction petition. The tenant in defence examined himself as DW1, Deepak Bahadur as DW2, Ramjilal Sain as DW5 and Babulal Chandel as DW6. He also relied upon 12 documents marked as Ex.A/1 to A/12. In the course of arguments the landlord abandoned issue No.2 framed by the Tribunal and confined himself to agitating the ground for eviction under section 9(k) of the Act of 2001.
5. The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on consideration of the evidence negated the case set up by the landlord on the ground that Ex.1 to 7 relied upon by him were adequately explained and negated by the tenant and the case of the tenant in defence was further bolstered by the evidence of DW2- Deepak Bahadur, DW5-Ramjilal Sain and DW6-Babulal Chandel apparently establishing that the tenant premises were not in disuse (non-user) as alleged in the eviction p
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
