1. Writ petition under Article 227 challenging eviction petition dismissal under Section 9, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for bona fide necessity. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 892
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Bharat Kumar S/o Kishan Chand – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Shyam Sunder Solanki S/o Shri Ram Chandra Solanki – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6442 OF 2016
Decided On : 09-10-2026
Important Points
A landlord's current association with a family business does not negate a 'bona fide requirement' to establish an independent business, and they cannot be expected to remain unemployed during the pendency of eviction proceedings to prove the genuineness of their need.
Subject
Property Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9(i) - Bona fide requirement - Eviction of tenant - Mere fact that a landlord is associated with a family business or working with a parent/relative does not negate the bona fide nature of the requirement to establish an independent commercial venture - Working in a family business and possessing an independent commercial establishment are conceptually distinct - A landlord cannot be expected to remain unemployed or sit idle during the prolonged pendency of eviction proceedings to preserve the purity of a plea of bona fide requirement (Paras 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.3 and 12) - Landlord is ordinarily the best judge of his own requirement and the manner in which his business is to be conducted (Para 7.5).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - While supervisory and not appellate in nature, the Court can interfere where a subordinate tribunal fails to consider material evidence in proper perspective, proceeds on an erroneous legal premise, or reaches a conclusion that is manifestly unreasonable (Para 13).
(C) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9(i) Proviso - Statutory safeguard prohibiting the landlord from letting out the premises for three years and providing for restoration of possession to the evicted tenant prevents the court from denying a genuine requirement based on speculative assumptions of future misuse (Para 11.1).
Facts of the case:
Landlords filed an eviction petition for a rented shop on the ground of bona fide necessity to start an independent business. The Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlord was already working with his father in another shop, suggesting the requirement for the demised premises was not genuine. This was challenged under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The lower tribunals erred in treating the landlord's engagement in a family business as a permanent alternative accommodation. The association with a family business does not displace a genuine intention to establish an independent vocation. A litigant is not expected to suspend their professional life or remain unemployed for the duration of judicial proceedings.
Issues: Whether the landlord's current association with a family business negates the bona fide requirement for an independent shop, and whether the conduct of the landlord in seeking employment during the pendency of the litigation can be used as evidence against the genuineness of the requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide requirement is an assessment of the honesty and genuineness of the landlord's intention to utilize the premises, not a reflection of their existing employment status. The law does not require a person to remain unemployed throughout the duration of a lawsuit to demonstrate necessity. Working with a family member is not equivalent to owning an independent and suitable commercial establishment.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - While supervisory and not appellate in nature, the Court can interfere where a subordinate tribunal fails to consider material evidence in proper perspective, proceeds on an erroneous legal premise, or reaches a conclusion that is manifestly unreasonable (Para 13).
(C) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9(i) Proviso - Statutory safeguard prohibiting the landlord from letting out the premises for three years and providing for restoration of possession to the evicted tenant prevents the court from denying a genuine requirement based on speculative assumptions of future misuse (Para 11.1).
Facts of the case:
Landlords filed an eviction petition for a rented shop on the ground of bona fide necessity to start an independent business. The Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlord was already working with his father in another shop, suggesting the requirement for the demised premises was not genuine. This was challenged under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The lower tribunals erred in treating the landlord's engagement in a family business as a permanent alternative accommodation. The association with a family business does not displace a genuine intention to establish an independent vocation. A litigant is not expected to suspend their professional life or remain unemployed for the duration of judicial proceedings.
Issues: Whether the landlord's current association with a family business negates the bona fide requirement for an independent shop, and whether the conduct of the landlord in seeking employment during the pendency of the litigation can be used as evidence against the genuineness of the requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide requirement is an assessment of the honesty and genuineness of the landlord's intention to utilize the premises, not a reflection of their existing employment status. The law does not require a person to remain unemployed throughout the duration of a lawsuit to demonstrate necessity. Working with a family member is not equivalent to owning an independent and suitable commercial establishment.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
-
statutory interpretation
-
proviso interpretation
- section 9(i) proviso - rajasthan rent control act (Para 11)
-
proviso interpretation
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For the Respondent: Mr. Shridhar Mehta
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For the Respondent: Mr. Shridhar Mehta
Table of Contents
2. Landlord argued bona fide necessity established; tenant contended concurrent findings of fact without jurisdictional error cannot be interfered with. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Working with family business does not negate bona fide requirement; landlord can aspire for independent establishment despite temporary family assistance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Bona fide requirement must be assessed on landlord's genuine intention, not present occupation; working with father not alternative accommodation. (Para 7 , 10 )
5. Writ petition allowed; eviction orders set aside for erroneous reasoning equating family business engagement with lack of bona fide requirement. (Para 17 )
6. Does a landlord's association with a family business negate his bona fide requirement for separate premises?
No, working in a family business out of love and affection cannot be equated with possessing an independent shop adequate for own requirement. (Para 7 )
7. What is the correct legal test for assessing bona fide requirement of a landlord?
The test is whether the landlord genuinely intends to use the premises for the stated purpose, not whether he has an alternative source of livelihood. (Para 10 )
8. What is the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in eviction matters?
Where the Tribunal fails to consider material evidence properly or proceeds on an erroneous legal premise, supervisory jurisdiction is available to correct such error. (Para 13 )
9. What statutory safeguard exists against misuse of an eviction decree under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act?
The proviso to Section 9(i) prohibits letting out premises for three years and allows the evicted tenant to seek restoration of possession in case of misuse. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
I. CHALLENGE
1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners assailing the judgment and order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro, in Original Petition No.400/2005, whereby the learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the original petition, as well as the judgment and order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro, in Rent Appeal No.73/2011, whereby the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the judgment and order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal.
II. INTRODUCTORY FACTS
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners, owners and landlords of the rented shop situated at Railway Station Road, Jodhpur, instituted an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, on the grounds of bona fide necessity and availability of alternate accommodation. It was pleaded that the petitioners required the rented premises for commencing their own business of stitching machines, electronic goods, gifts and allied articles, while the respondents were carrying on their respective businesses from alternate premises. The respondents contested the petition by filing their reply, which was followed by a rejoinder and evidence of both sides. After recording the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the eviction petition vide order dated 27.05.2011. The petitioners preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro vide order dated 22.05.2015. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred assailing the aforesaid orders.
III. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the learned Tribunals below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have ignored material admissions made by the respondents regarding availability of alternate accommodation. It is contended that the respondents themselves admitted possession and use of various other shops/premises for carrying on their business. Learned counsel further submits that the bona fide necessity of petitioner No.1, who intends to commence his own independent business, has been duly established and the landlord is entitled to choose the premises best suited for his business. It is further urged that the findings recorded by both the Tribunals are based on misreading and improper appreciation of evidence and are contrary to the material on record. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the eviction petition filed by the petitioners be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners seek interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Tribunals below, without demonstrating any jurisdictional error or perversity. It is contended that the eviction petition was founded only on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity and the plea regarding alternate accommodation under Section 9(j) of the Act of 2001 was never pleaded or pressed before the learned Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have sought to enlarge the scope of the original proceedings by relying upon facts and documents introduced through the rejoinder and by selectively referring to the evidence of the respondents. It is urged that the learned Tribunals, upon proper appreciation of the material on record, rightly found that the alleged necessity was neither reasonable nor bona fide and that material facts had been concealed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings merely because another view is possible. Ac
