Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Sharda Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Bhagwati Prasad Dalmion – Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 270/2005
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Rent Control legislation was enacted to strike a reasonable balance between the protection of tenants and the rights of landlords. The court considered the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960, including Section 13 which deals with eviction of tenants. The court held that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent and that the plaintiff had a bonafide and reasonable necessity for the premises. The court also considered the issue of comparative hardship and held that the plaintiff would face more hardship than the defendant if the premises were not vacated.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendant. The defendant claimed that both rooms in the premises were let out to him, while the plaintiff claimed that only one room was let out. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, decreeing the suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The defendant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court considered the issues of default, unauthorised possession, bonafide necessity, and comparative hardship. It found in favor of the plaintiff on the issues of default and bonafide necessity, and against the plaintiff on the issues of unauthorised possession and mesne profits. The court also found that the plaintiff had joined different causes of action in one suit, but the defendant did not challenge this finding on appeal. The court held that the defendant had not paid rent for more than six months and had committed default. It also held that the plaintiff had a bonafide and reasonable necessity for the premises and that the plaintiff would face more comparative hardship than the defendant if the premises were not vacated. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the eviction decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent and that the plaintiff had a bonafide and reasonable necessity for the premises. The court also held that the plaintiff would face more comparative hardship than the defendant if the premises were not vacated. Therefore, the court upheld the eviction decree.
Result: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the eviction decree. The defendant was given four months to vacate and hand over possession of the premises to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 23.2.2005 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jhunjhunu in Suit No.(68/97, 30/99) 197/2003, whereby and whereunder the suit for eviction and recovery of rent has been decreed against the defendant- appellants.
2. The facts of the case as culled out from the record are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') owned a Nohra east facing in Ward No.20, near Dalmiyon ka Kua, Chirawa, wherein two rooms, kitchen, varandah, latrine bathroom were constructed. The construction was shown in green colour and red lines in the map annexed with the plaint.
As per plaintiff rented premises comprises of only one room, kitchen, veranda, latrine and bathroom in Nohra and another room was not let out but defendant tenant, behind the back of plaintiff, has broken the lock of the room on 7-2-1997 and entered into possession. Whereas as per defendant both rooms with other portion in nohra were let out by father of plaintiff way back in the year 1967 @ Rs.45/- per month and tenancy is oral. The trial court while deciding issues No.2&4 has concluded that entire nohra including two rooms, kitchen, veranda, latrine and bathroom were let out and are in tenancy of defendant since 1967 @ Rs.45/- per month.
3. Plaintiff instituted present civil suit for recovery of rent and eviction on 25-11-1997 invoking provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Rent Act') on ground of default and his bonafide necessity. For default it was stated that the defendant has not paid rent for last fifteen years and five months, thus has committed default, however since as per law the plaintiff can claim arrears of rent only for three years, therefore the plaintiff prayed for due arrears of rent only for three years preceding to filing the suit. In relating the ground of bonafide necessity the plaintiff pleaded that he is permanent resident of town Chirawa and for the purpose of business he resides at Kolkata. However, he used to visit Chirawa on times and again. Earlier when one room in the nohra in question was in possession of plaintiff, he used to stay therein, but since the defendant has encroached upon on that room, therefore, now plaintiff has no other place of his own for his stay and residence at Chirawa. It was averred that plaintiff's health has turned unwell and he required the suit premises for his own residence to recuperate his health. The plaintiff also pleaded his hardship due to having no other premises of his own in Chirawa. Plaintiff stated to serve one legal notice dated 6-6-199 upon the defendant asking for due rent and to vacate the suit premises, but same was not responded, hence, present suit has been filed.
4. On issuing notice, the defendant filed written statement and admitted the oral tenancy by plaintiff's father since the time of his father since 1967 at the rate of Rs.45/- per month. He stated that no room in the nohra was in possession of plaintiff and whole nohra including two rooms and other construction are in tenancy since inception. Grounds of default and bonafide necessity were denied. The defendant took defence that the plaintiff is an affluent person and has flourishing business at Kolkata and reside there since several years. He has alternative place for residence at Chirawa also. The defendant contended that towards west side of the nohra in question another nohra of plaintiff is lying vacant and further the plaintiff has an ancestral haveli in Chirawa, so if plaintiff wants to come back and reside in Chirawa, he can stay in his another nohra and Haveli. The plaintiff's necessity was alleged to be malafide. The defendant stated that he has retired from service and has no other place to reside in Chirawa. Denying the comparative hardship of landlord, he stated that any other alternative premises in Chirawa like the suit premises, would not be available to him for
The main legal point established in this judgment is that a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant if the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and the landlord has a bonafide and reasonabl....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the court must consider the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for eviction, the comparative hardship between the parties, and....
The court established that a landlord's genuine need for premises must be objectively assessed, and failure to seek alternative accommodation can negate a tenant's claim of hardship.
Tenancy and Land Lord - Bona fide & ‘need’ - If a landlord is in genuine and bona fide need of a tenanted portion, tenant cannot legally raise the issue that space available with landlord is adequate....
The landlord's requirement for eviction must be proven as reasonable and bona fide, with consideration of alternative accommodations for both parties.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction is established even if he owns other properties, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's use of his properties.
The landlord must establish bonafide and reasonable requirement for eviction, and the suppression of material facts can lead to adverse inference against the landlord.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of detailed evidence and measurement to support claims of personal necessity under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.
The death of a landlord necessitates that a legal heir must establish their own bonafide requirement for premises independently, distinguishing it from the deceased's claims.
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
