1. Eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on ground of bonafide requirement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BIPIN GUPTA, J.
Pratap Singh Hada S/o Shri Chandra Singh Hada – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar Jhamb S/o Late Shri Ramlal Jhamb – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18360 of 2016
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Important Points
Bonafide requirement for eviction is satisfied if the need is genuine, even if not pressing. Obtaining alternative premises by one family member does not automatically satisfy the need of others, nor does prior sale of other properties or unrelated compromises negate bonafide necessity.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9(i) - Eviction on ground of bonafide requirement - Landlord’s requirement for premises need not be a dire or pressing necessity; the eviction can be granted provided the requirement is genuine and bonafide (Para 29). Proviso to Section 9(i) safeguards the tenant's interest by prohibiting the landlord from letting out the premises to another person within three years, failing which the tenant is entitled to restoration of possession (Paras 27-28).
(B) Bonafide necessity - Where a requirement is pleaded for two family members and one of them obtains alternative premises during the pendency of the suit, it cannot be presumed that the requirement of the other family member automatically stands satisfied (Paras 17-18).
(C) Conduct of Landlord - The sale of other properties prior to the institution of the eviction suit cannot be used as a ground to doubt the bonafide requirement of the landlord (Paras 19-20). Furthermore, compromises entered into in other eviction proceedings not based on the ground of bonafide requirement cannot be used to term the current claim of necessity as artificial (Paras 24-25).
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant on several grounds, including bonafide requirement for two sons to start a business. The Rent Tribunal allowed the petition based on the bonafide need of one son, though the need of the other was found to be satisfied as he had obtained another shop. The Appellate Rent Tribunal reversed this decision, dismissing the eviction petition on the grounds that the combined need was satisfied, the landlord had previously sold other shops, and had compromised with other tenants in separate suits. The landlord challenged this reversal via a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Rent Tribunal committed perversity by misreading the evidence and pleadings. The court found that the acquisition of premises by one son did not negate the genuine need of the other son. The previous sale of properties occurred years before the suit and was irrelevant. Additionally, compromises in unrelated proceedings did not invalidate the current bonafide need. The Rent Tribunal's original well-reasoned finding was restored.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Rent Tribunal committed illegality and perversity in reversing the finding of bonafide necessity based on the acquisition of alternative premises by one of the sons, previous sale of other shops, and compromises in unrelated eviction suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the fulfillment of the need of one family member does not automatically satisfy the requirement of others when requirements are pleaded jointly. Prior alienation of property or compromises in eviction proceedings not based on bonafide necessity do not render a genuine current requirement artificial.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal set aside; order of the Rent Tribunal restored.
(B) Bonafide necessity - Where a requirement is pleaded for two family members and one of them obtains alternative premises during the pendency of the suit, it cannot be presumed that the requirement of the other family member automatically stands satisfied (Paras 17-18).
(C) Conduct of Landlord - The sale of other properties prior to the institution of the eviction suit cannot be used as a ground to doubt the bonafide requirement of the landlord (Paras 19-20). Furthermore, compromises entered into in other eviction proceedings not based on the ground of bonafide requirement cannot be used to term the current claim of necessity as artificial (Paras 24-25).
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant on several grounds, including bonafide requirement for two sons to start a business. The Rent Tribunal allowed the petition based on the bonafide need of one son, though the need of the other was found to be satisfied as he had obtained another shop. The Appellate Rent Tribunal reversed this decision, dismissing the eviction petition on the grounds that the combined need was satisfied, the landlord had previously sold other shops, and had compromised with other tenants in separate suits. The landlord challenged this reversal via a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Rent Tribunal committed perversity by misreading the evidence and pleadings. The court found that the acquisition of premises by one son did not negate the genuine need of the other son. The previous sale of properties occurred years before the suit and was irrelevant. Additionally, compromises in unrelated proceedings did not invalidate the current bonafide need. The Rent Tribunal's original well-reasoned finding was restored.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Rent Tribunal committed illegality and perversity in reversing the finding of bonafide necessity based on the acquisition of alternative premises by one of the sons, previous sale of other shops, and compromises in unrelated eviction suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the fulfillment of the need of one family member does not automatically satisfy the requirement of others when requirements are pleaded jointly. Prior alienation of property or compromises in eviction proceedings not based on bonafide necessity do not render a genuine current requirement artificial.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal set aside; order of the Rent Tribunal restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 227 (Para 31)
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sangram Singh Solanki
For the Respondents: Saransh Saini, Vinod Kumar Sharma
For the Appellant : Sangram Singh Solanki
For the Respondents: Saransh Saini, Vinod Kumar Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Landlord asserted bonafide need for sons; tenant disputed genuineness citing alternative premises and prior compromises. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Appellate tribunal misread evidence; alternative shop for one son did not satisfy other son's requirement. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. If need is pleaded for multiple persons, satisfaction of one's need does not automatically satisfy the other's. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Writ allowed; appellate order set aside; eviction decree restored; tenant granted six months to vacate. (Para 31 , 32 )
6. Does satisfaction of need for one son automatically satisfy the need of another son in a joint bonafide requirement claim?
No, if the need is pleaded for multiple persons, satisfaction of one's requirement does not automatically satisfy the need of the other. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. Can sale of property prior to filing of eviction petition be used to doubt landlord's bonafide need?
No, sale prior to institution of the suit cannot be used to doubt bonafide requirement unless it occurred during the pendency of the suit or appeal. (Para 19 , 20 )
8. Can a compromise in an eviction suit based on default be used to disbelieve a bonafide need claim in another suit?
No, a compromise in a different suit not based on bonafide requirement cannot be a ground to disbelieve a bonafide need claim. (Para 24 )
JUDGMENT :
BIPIN GUPTA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 06.10.2016, passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota, in Rent Appeal No. 75/2015, whereby the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant, quashed and set aside the judgment dated 22.09.2015, passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Kota, in Rent Application No. 299/2005 (810/2014), whereby, the application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2001') by the petitioner-landlord was allowed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, against the respondent-tenant, seeking eviction from the disputed shop on the ground of default, bonafide requirement, availability of alternative premises, sub-letting, nuisance and material alteration. It was contended that the premises were bonafidely required as the petitioner had two sons, namely Raghuraj Singh and Raghunandan Singh, who intended to start a business of auto parts and computer hardware from the disputed shops.
3. The respondent-tenant filed a reply therein and denied the averments of the eviction petition inter alia stating that he had been the tenant of the disputed property since 16.07.1986, and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,200/- at the time of filing of the suit. It was further contended that on the ground of alleged bonafide requirement, the petitioner had already got the basement vacated from the respondent, where his son Raghuraj Singh was operating an STD/PCO booth. Further, in lieu of the basement, the respondent was let out a room situated on the northern side of the disputed shop. With regard to the necessity of other son namely Ragunandan Singh, it was submitted that he was still pursuing his studies. Thus, according to the respondent, the alleged requirement was neither bonafide nor reasonable.
4. The learned Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 22.09.2015, allowed the eviction petition and passed eviction certificate on the ground of bonafide necessity of Raghuraj Singh. However, the issues relating to default, sub-letting, material alteration, nuisance and availability of alternative premises were decided against the petitioner-landlord.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.09.2015, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 06.10.2016 and consequently, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.10.2016, the petitioner-landlord preferred the present writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016, is patently illegal and arbitrary; thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was contended that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal committed a serious illegality while reversing the finding on the issue of bonafide necessity by observing that the petitioner had sold three shops to one Pramod Agarwal prior to filing of the suit, whereas the said shops were sold in the year 2003 on occasion of marriage of his daughter. Later, in 2005, the need arose on account of the fact that the petitioner's son Raghuraj Singh was in requirement of operating a business of hardware and auto parts in the disputed shop.
7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that no cross-examination was conducted by the respondent regarding the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter and the consequent sale of shops. Moreover, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal completely misread the evidence with the regard to the fact of STD/PCO being operated by the son of petitioner whereas the same was being operated by his daughter in law Smt. Nihal Kanwar in a 3ft. x 10ft. shop.
7.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly a suit was file
