Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Premratan S/o Mangilal – Appellant
Versus
Ramchandra and Co. and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Property - Tenants - Eviction - Petitioner is landlord of property in dispute and count of default in payment of due rent by respondents-tenants, despite service of notices upon them, petitioner-landlord sought to evict respondents-tenants on ground of bona-fide and personal necessity, in particular - Further submits that respondents-tenants had also sublet property in dispute to a third party and eviction so sought was on valid grounds - Petitioner/landlord also submit that in order to enforce his right to evict respondents-tenants from property in question, petitioner had filed an appropriate application before learned Rent Tribunal, which ruled in petitioner's favour, vide judgment and certificate dated but however, same was appealed against by respondents-tenants before learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, which ruled in favour of respondents-tenants, vide judgment and certificate dated – Held, Court therefore observes that in view of aforementioned precedential backdrop, findings arrived at by learned Rent Appellate Tribunal in present case, was not a valid and sound rule of appreciation of evidence, more particularly, pick and choose from testimony of a witness, inspite of fact that same was not corroborated by any evidence - As regards judgment and certificate passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Court is of opinion that same correctly appreciated evidence pertaining to present dispute, as laid before it, while recording finding that since one ground of eviction of respondent-tenants viz. ground of bona-fide and personal necessity of petitioner-landlord was sufficiently proven, right of petitioner-landlord to evict respondents-tenants from property in question existed - Present petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:
(2) Quash the judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018 (annexure-6) passed by the learned appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner.
(3) Any other writ or order, the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is the landlord of the property in dispute, and on count of default in payment of due rent by the respondents-tenants, despite service of notices upon them, the petitioner-landlord sought to evict the respondents-tenants on the ground of bona-fide and personal necessity, in particular. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents-tenants had also sublet the property in dispute to a third party, and therefore, eviction so sought was on valid grounds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord also submit that in order to enforce his right to evict the respondents-tenants from the property in question, the petitioner had filed an appropriate application before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner which ruled in petitioner's favour, vide judgment and certificate dated 02.04.2016, but however, the same was appealed against by the respondents-tenants before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bikaner, which ruled in the favour of the respondents-tenants, vide judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord also submit that the judgment so passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal was based solely on the cross examination of PW-1 Brijratan Rathi, which is unfair and unjust and thus, aggrieved by such determination, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. 1999 AIR SC 3864, Boramma vs. Krishna Gowda and Others, 2000 (4) CCC 148, Flora Elias Nahoum and Others vs. Idrish Ali Laskar, 2018 (2) CCC 496 and Ambadas Khanduji Shinde vs. Ashok Sadashiv Mamukar, 2017 (3) CCC 824.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order dated 15.03.2021 passed by this Court in Ajmal Hussain vs. Prem Ratan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/2020) whereby this Court has declined to accept the ground as raised on behalf of the petitioner therein, that since the landlord has accepted that he was paying the income tax, therefore, it cannot be inferred that there was existence of any bona-fide or personal necessity of the suit premises therein.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-tenants submits that the petitioner-landlord in fact does not have the bona-fide or personal necessity, so as to justify his claim regarding eviction of the respondents-tenants from the property in question, and the averment made by the petitioner-landlord, before the learned Rent Tribunal that his three sons are unemployed and need the property in question for residential purposes, is a falsehood as the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that each of the three sons are employed, since they were filing the necessary income tax returns.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits that the petitioner-landlord wanted to receive the enhanced rent of the property in question and that, the same was the actual reason for seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from the property in question.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits that the property in ques
The landlord's right to seek eviction based on personal and bonafide necessity and the court's deference to the landlord's prerogative in deciding the use of the premises.
The court established that a second eviction application is permissible if the first was not decided on merits, emphasizing the need for a practical approach to bona fide requirements.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that once a landlord establishes reasonable and bonafide necessity for the accommodation, it cannot be rejected on the premise that the person d....
The crucial date for determining the bonafide need of the landlord is the date of institution of the eviction suit, and subsequent events, such as the death of the landlord, do not necessarily result....
The filing of a fair rent petition does not negate a landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
Amendments to pleadings regarding bona fide necessity must be timely and relevant, and subsequent events do not negate the landlord's bona fide need for the premises.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
