The landlord's bona fide need at the time of filing the suit continues even after the sale of the property to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings.

ORDER

1. A challenge has been made by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ’tenant’), to judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur as affirmed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan on 23.09.2016. By the judgment dated 13.11.2014, Rent Tribunal directed that the tenant was liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises. It was further held that the landlords were entitled for revised rent at the rate of Rs. 2,300/- from the date of filing of the eviction petition. Further, the petitioner was directed to handover possession to the respondent-landlords within six months, failing which he would be liable to pay three times contracted rent in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

2. It is noticed that during the pendency of present writ petition, an application was filed on behalf of Kailash Bhati and Laxman Bhati (subsequent purchasers) and vide order dated 22.01.2020 passed by this Court, they were impleaded as party respondents in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act was filed by the landlord for his personal and bonafide need of the subject property with an assertion that his son namely Rajendra would establish a factory of wooden furniture. He submits that the subject property has been sold to Kailash Bhati and Laxman Bhati during the pendency of petition, therefore, personal need of the original landlord no longer survives and in this view of the matter, the judgments dated 13.11.2014 and 23.09.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed for the aforesaid contentions on the judgments passed in the cases of M/s. Martin & Harris (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Prem Chand reported in 1996(3) WLC 461 and Wg.Com.H.K. Lal Vs. Satish Chand (Dr.) reported in 1996 (3) RLW 20.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the judgment of the tribunal is very limited. Grounds of perversity, misdirection in law, manifest injustice or misuse of jurisdiction have to be made out for indulgence. He further submits that the courts below in the judgments impugned after appreciation of the evidence in apropos manner reached to a definite conclusion with regard to bona fide necessity and personal need of the original landlord, therefore, the findings are not required to be interfered with by this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court in the case of Naresh Chandra Vs. Smt. Premlata Bakshi reported in 2009 (1) BNJ 423 held that bona fide need of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of suit has to be established and same continues even after death of persons for whose need the eviction was sought and even after the suit property is sold to a third party during the pendency of lis.

7. In the case of Abdul Rehman & Ors. Vs. Harish Kumar & Ors. (S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No.198/2003) a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reiterated a similar view. The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference:-

"9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the judgments and decrees of the courts below and the judgment cited at bar by the learned counsels for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned courts below for granting eviction decree do not require any interference by this Court in the present second appeal and, therefore, the same deserve to be upheld and the substantital questions of law framed by a coordinate bench of this Court, deserve to be answered in favour of plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/appellants. The legal position with regard to bona fide and reasonable need of the land is no more res-integra and the landlord is the best judge of his/her business needs and neither the defendant/tenant c