Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Jagannath Prasad @ Jaggi Ram S/o Shri Sohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chand S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 455/2017
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Section 100 - Code of Civil Procedure - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - [15 of the Act of 1950] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which deals with the restoration of possession of rented shops. The court highlighted the burden of proof on the tenants to prove that the landlord did not start any business in the rented shops after obtaining vacant possession, and the requirement for sufficient evidence to support the claim. The court also emphasized the need for the landlord to prove the use of the shops for business purposes, including having a license under the Shop Act, electricity connection, and bills' vouchers for running the business. The court referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopal Gurjar, Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari, and C. Doddanarayan Reddy Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an application for restoration of possession of rented shops under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court allowed the application, but the first appellate court quashed the judgment and decree and dismissed the application, stating that the tenants failed to prove that the landlord did not start any business in the rented shops after obtaining vacant possession.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court found that the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to shift the burden of proof onto the landlord and that the landlord had demonstrated the use of the shops for business purposes. The court also held that the questions of law raised by the appellants were essentially questions of fact and did not qualify as substantial questions of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the burden of proof on the tenants to demonstrate that the landlord did not start any business in the rented shops after obtaining vacant possession, the requirement for sufficient evidence to support the claim, and the classification of the questions of law as substantial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 15 of the Act of 1950, the burden of proof on the tenants, the need for sufficient evidence, and the classification of questions of law as substantial. The court also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support its findings.
Final Decision: The second appeal was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed. No costs were awarded, and all other pending applications were disposed of. The record of the courts below was to be sent back.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017, passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.159/2016 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Bharatpur, whereby and whereunder first appeal, filed by defendant-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2000, passed in Civil Suit No.11/2000 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Bharatpur, was allowed and consequentially application for restoration of possession filed by evicted tenant came to be dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for appellants, perused the impugned judgments and record.
3. It appears from record that initially in respect of three shops in question, in Civil Suit No.08/1969, an eviction decree was passed against tenant-Jagannath Prasad @ Jaggi Ram and his borther Surajbhan, on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of rented shops to respondent-landlord and that eviction decree attained finality in second appeal vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.1987. In pursuance to the eviction decree, rented shops have been vacated and possession was delivered to respondent-landlord in May, 1988.
4. Thereafter, tenant-Jagannath and legal representatives of Surajbhan instituted an application under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, for restoration of possession of rented shops on the ground that the landlord after obtaining vacant possession of rented shops, has not started any business threrein.
5. Learned trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2000, allowed the application and directed respondentlandlord to re-deliver the possession of rented shops to plaintifftenants.
6. Respondent-landlord challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2000 by way of filing first appeal. The first appellate court, re-considered the entire subject matter in issue and vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017, has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2000 and dismissed the application, filed by tenants for restoration of possession.
7. The first appellate court has given reasons to upset findings and judgment of the trial court dated 19.08.2000. The first appellate has observed that it was the burden of plaintiffs-tenant to prove that landlord, after obtaining vacant possession of rented shops, has not started any business therein and since tenants could not lead sufficient evidence, they cannot take benefit of the lack of evidence on part of the landlord. The first appellate court has observed that in absence of sufficient evidence from the side of tenants, the onus cannot be shifted upon landlord to prove that he had started the use of rented shops for business purposes, after obtaining the possession in execution of the eviction decree. Learned trial court fell into error by shifting the onus upon landlord to prove that he started to use shops in question for business purposes and in absence of producing evidence of having licence under the Shop Act, electricity connection and bills’ vouchers for running business, it is not proved that he started to use rented shops for commercial purposes. The first appellate court has observed that landlord deposed his evidence that rented shops were started to use for selling the colour & paint materials etc. It is come on record that the electric connection was in the name of tenants and after vacation of shops in question, that electric connection was disconnected, therefore, on that basis, it may not be assumed that landlord did not use rented shops for business purposes. Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 wholly fall short to prove requirements of Section 15 of the Act of 1950. It appears that application was filed on the assumption that respondent landlord has intention to let out the shops in question.
8. It may also be noticed that the eviction decree which attained finalty vide judgment dated 15.09.1987 and thereafter, since May, 1988, the possessi
The burden of proof on tenants to demonstrate the landlord's failure to start any business in the rented shops after obtaining vacant possession, the requirement for sufficient evidence, and the clas....
The court upheld the landlord's right to evict the tenant based on the default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, as provided under the Rent Act.
The landlord is the best judge of his need and the court cannot advise the landlord to compromise his necessity for the benefit of the tenant.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove bonafide and reasonable necessity for eviction under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction)....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence are within the province of the trial court and first appellate court, and re-apprec....
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity in eviction cases and highlighted the lack of bona fides in pursuing frivolous litigation.
The requirement of substantial questions of law and the impact of new tenancy acts on ongoing proceedings must be carefully considered by the court.
The court established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.
The genuine need of the landlord for the premises and the default in rent payment by the tenant are crucial factors in eviction cases.
Tenant cannot be evicted without the landlord proving lawful title, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interrupted unless perverse.
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
