Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 531
(Rajasthan High Court)
Ram Prakash Vs. Shashi Bala Bajitpuria & Ors. (Mathur, J.)
HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE MISS JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
Ram Prakash
Versus
Shashi Bala Bajitpuria & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.168 of 2013 AND D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.135 of 2015, decided on 19.08.2015
In DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.168/2013
R.R. Nagori, Senior Advocate, assisted by Alkesh Agarwal, for Appellant;
Hemant Jain, for Respondents
In DB Civil Misc. Application No.135/2015
Hemant Jain, for Applicant;
R.R. Nagori, Senior Advocate, assisted by Alkesh Agarwal, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Sec. 9 and 6 — Suit for eviction and enhancement of rent — Trial Court rejected the application for eviction but revision of rent allowed — In writ petition Single Bench ordered to hand over peaceful vacant possession of suit shop and to pay mense profit @ Rs. 5000/- per month for use and occupation — Concurrent finding of lower Courts — Held — Findings of lower Courts has not been examined and on affirmation of that finding no order of eviction u/Sec. 9 could have been given — Writ issued and the directions given are ill founded — Writ petition is remanded for its adjudication afresh by learned Single Bench. (Paras 16, 17)
Appeal accepted.
jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001] /kkjk 9 vkSj 6 & csn[kyh o fdjk;s esa o`f) gsrq okn & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us csn[kyh gsrq vkosnu fujLr fd;k ysfdu fdjk;s ds iqujh{k.k gsrq vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k & fjV ;kfpdk esa ,dy ihB us oknxr nqdku dk 'kkfUriw.kZ [kkyh dCtk lqiwnZ djus vkSj mi;ksx o miHkksx gsrq 5000@& :- ekfld dh nj ls vUr%dkfyu ykHk dk Hkqxrku djus ds vkns'k fn;s & fuEu U;k;ky;ksa ds leorhZ fu"d"kZ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fuEu U;k;ky;ksa ds fu"d"kZ dk ijh{k.k ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ml fu"d"kZ dh lEiqf"V ij /kkjk 9 ds rgr csn[kyh dk dksbZ vkns'k ugha fn;k tk ldrk Fkk & tkjh fjV vkSj fn;s x;s funsZ'k nks"kiw.kZ gS & u;s fljs U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq fjV ;kfpdk fo}ku ,dy ihB dks izfr izsf"kr dhA ¼in la[;k 16] 17½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that while adjudicating an application preferred under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'), the Rent Tribunal on basis of the pleadings framed following issues:-
1. Whether a western opening shop measuring 8 x 17 feet at shopping complex No.6, Swami Dayanand Marg, Sriganganagar is rented to non-applicant Ram Prakash son of Aaidan since 11.5.1989 with a rent of Rs.1850/- in which he is working in the name of 'Vishal Jewelers'?
2. Whether the applicant desires to start the business of boutique and beauty parlour at the rented premises and she is having reasonable and bonafide necessity of the rented premises?
3. Whether partial eviction from the rented premises measuring 8 x 17 feet is not possible?
4. Whether revised rent of the rented premises can be determined as Rs.4208/- as per Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act?
5. Whether the rented premises was taken on rent for the affairs of the firm 'Vishal Jewelers' and 'Vishal Jewelers' being not impleaded as party, the application deserves to be rejected?
6. Whether during the course of tenancy the rent was enhanced time to time and, therefore, as per Section 6 the applicant is not entitled for revision of rent?
7. Whether the applicant started the business earlier in the name of Shashi Beauty Parlour and closed that being failed to run?
8. Whether the family of the applicant has started business in the name of Bajitpuria Jewelers near the rented premises and, therefore, applicant is not in need of the shop rented?
9. Whether the applicant is having two constructed shops at 23, Shankar Colony, Sriganganagar and, therefore, she is not in need of rented premises?
10. Whether as a consequent to eviction of the rented premises the non-applicant shall suffer more comparative hardship and inconvenience than to the applicant as his business shall be finished and he will loose his credibility?
11. Whether a sum of Rs.16,266/- has been paid by the non-applicant twice and if so he is entitled to get that amount adjusted?
12. Relief?
3. The Rent Tribunal by the judgment dated 19.5.2006 decided the issues No.1 and 5 in favour of the respondent-applicant (landlord) and against the appellant non-applicant (tenant). The issue No.2 was decided against the respondent-applicant and in favour of the appellant non-applicant. The issues No.7, 8 and 9 were decided in favour of the appellant non-applicant and against the respondent-applicant. While deciding the issue No.4 the Tribunal revised the rent as Rs.3317/- as on 31.3.2003 and further declared the applicant entitled for enhancement of the rent by 5% every year and further by including the total enhanced rent with original rent after a period of 10 years and then to enhance that by 5% every year. The issue No.11 was decided against the appellant non-applicant and in favour of the respondent-applicant. The issues No.3 and 10 were not adjudicated being not available as grounds for eviction or otherwise under the Act of 2001.
4. The Tribunal as a consequent to determination of the issues in the terms above rejected the application under Section 9 but granted the application seeking revision of rent as per Section 6 of the Act of 2001. The applicant landlord assailed validity of the judgment dated 19.5.2006 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal by way of filing an appeal which also came to be rejected vide the judgment dated 13.11.2006. The Appellate Rent Tribunal while maintaining the conclusions arrived by the Rent Tribunal for the issues No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 reversed the finding pertaining to the issues No.5 and 11. The Appellate Rent Tribunal decided these issues against the respondent-applicant and in favour of the appellant non-applicant.
5. The respondent applicant preferre
