Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 28879
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
CHAIN SINGH GEHLOT – Appellant
Versus
SUSHILA PARIHAR – Respondent
CW / 7177 / 2023
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas, Mr Avin Chhangani
The landlord's subjective choice regarding the necessity of premises for business is paramount, and the tenant cannot dictate alternative accommodations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 9(i) - Eviction petition filed by landlord for bonafide requirement of shop for business - Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed appeal, finding landlord's need genuine - Petitioner contended eviction petition premature and based on incomplete arguments - Court upheld Tribunal's decision, emphasizing landlord's right to choose suitable premises. (Paras 2, 19, 24)
(B) Bonafide Requirement - The necessity of the landlord for the premises is to be determined by the landlord's subjective choice, and the tenant cannot dictate the premises from which the landlord should operate. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction of a shop rented to the petitioner, claiming bonafide necessity for starting a business after her husband's death. The petitioner contested the eviction, arguing the landlord had other properties available. (Paras 3, 5, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court found the landlord's need for the shop genuine, considering her financial hardship and the suitability of the location for her business. (Paras 19, 24)
Issues: The main issues included whether the landlord's requirement was bonafide and if the eviction petition was premature. (Paras 11, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the landlord's subjective choice regarding the premises is paramount, and the tenant's claims of alternative accommodations do not negate the landlord's bona fide need. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Judgment
REPORTABLE Reserved on:- 03/01/2024
Pronounced on:- 18/01/2024
1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Fresh’ Category but on the joint request of both the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :-
“that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by way of an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgment/ order dated 16.03.2023 (Anx.11) passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in rent appeal no. 38/2022 (NCV- 38/22) as also the certificate dated 16.03.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Rent Petition no. 85/2015 (NCV No.122/15) filed by the respondent- applicant may kindly be dismissed.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord- applicant Sushila Parihar preferred an application dated 02.03.2015 before the Rent Tribunal Jodhpur under section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 against the petitioner for eviction of one shop measuring 9ft x 18ft let out on rent for rupees 4,400/- to the petitioner who is running a shop in the name of M/S Gehlot Sabji Bhandar in the premise in dispute.
4. Furthermore the property in question was owned by father in law of the respondent-applicant who constructed various shops out of which one shop no.7 i.e., the suit property was let out to Smt. Puni Bai (mother of the petitioner) against the monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The monthly rent was increased from time to time with the consent of the parties. After death of father in law of the respondent-applicant (Sh. Gordhan Ji), his son Kalu Ram i.e. husband of the respondent-applicant continued to collect the rent from all the shopkeepers. After death of Sh. Kalu Ram in the year 2007, the respondent-applicant became the owner of the entire property and is collecting the rent from the tenants since then. After death of Smt. Puni Bai in the year 2012 his son i.e. the present petitioner is running the shop in the name Gehlot Sabji Bhandar. In the year 2013 the monthly rent of the shop was increased from rupees 2000/- to Rs 4000/- and thereafter the rent was increased to rupees 4400/-.
5. Furthermore, there are in total 12 shops in the Kalu Ram market which are rented to various other people and that one shop adjacent to the suit property is of the same size and is lying vacant which is in possession of respondent-applicant. The possession of the suit premises was sought by the respondent- applicant by filing an application under section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (Annexure-1) on the ground that she is a 48 year old lady and is unemployed as her husband late Shri Kalu Ram died in the year 2007 and after his death the family has no source of income to maintain themselves. Respondent- applicant also has three daughters out of which one is unmarried and there being other rental income from other shops as the income is not sufficient for her and her daughter therefore she intends to start a business of artificial jewellery for which no premises is available with her. Thus she claimed reasonable and bonafide requirement of suit premises for business of artificial jewellery.
6. Thereafter the service of notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure-2) to the petition and denied the claim of the respondent-applicant.
7. Thereafter the respondent-applicant filed a rejoinder (Annexure-3) and submitted evidence on affidavit of three witnesses including herself and her two daughters namely Smt. Sonia Parihar and Ms. Rajshree Parihar, however, Smt. Sonia Parihar did not appear in the witness-box and only the respondent- applicant and Ms. Rajshree appeared for cross- examination whose evidence was marked as PW-1 & PW-2 (Annexure 4 & 5) respectively and petitioner was examined as DW1 and copy of evidence on affidavit was filed along with the cross examination (Annexure-6).
8. Furthermore an application under Se
