HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4028/2021

Ashok Chouhan S/o Shankar Lal Chouhan, Aged About 71 Years,

By Caste Rajput, Address Kalarthi Studio, 15 Residency Road,

District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

M/s Ganpati Plaza, Registered Partnership (Firm Registration

No.17/26/52/2006) Through Partner Mohan Lal S/o Ramchand

Makhija, Resident Of - B-94, Shakti Nagar, District Udaipur,

Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr Joga Ram Patel

Mr Kuldeep Singh Solanki

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr Deelip Kawadia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

04/04/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed by the

Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the

Appellate Tribunal’), whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of

respondent has been allowed and the judgment dated 24.07.2019

passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal)

Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rent Tribunal’) has

been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to vacate the

premises in question within a period of six months from the date

of passing of the impugned order.

(2 of 9)

[CW-4028/2021]

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent preferred

an application under Section 9(a)(i)(m) of Rajasthan Rent Control

Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2001’) against

the petitioner seeking eviction from a shop situated in a building

at 15, Residency Road, Udaipur. The said application was filed on

the ground of default in making payment of rent as well as of

bonafide necessity.

It was contended on behalf of the respondent that it

purchased a building situated at 15 Residency Road, District

Udaipur from the erstwhile owner on 17.08.2002 and in that

building there is one shop, which has been let out to the

petitioner/tenant by the earlier owner. The description of the shop

was given in para 3 of the application.

It is stated by the respondent that the information in

respect of purchasing the property was given to the petitioner on

17.01.2006 and the petitioner was requested to deposit agreed

rent in the bank account of the respondent. It is alleged that when

the petitioner did not deposit the agreed rent of Rs.1000/-, the

respondent sent a legal notice to him and despite this he did not

deposit the rent. It is further contended by the respondent that

the disputed shop is required by it for the purpose of establishing

a business after demolishing the entire building.

In response to the application, the petitioner filed his

reply and denied the averments made in the application. The

petitioner has disputed that he is at fault in making payment of

rent and also seriously disputed the bonafide need of the

respondent in relation to the disputed shop.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent

Tribunal framed as many as four issues, which read as under:

(3 of 9)

[CW-4028/2021]

“1-

vk;k foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks fookfnr ifjlj dk fdjk;k fnukad

17-8-02 ls vnk ugha fd;k gS \

------ izkFkhZ

2-

vk;k fookfnr ifjlj okyk Hkou iqjkuk gksdj vlqjf{kr gS

rFkk fxjus ;ksX; gS \

------ izkFkhZ

3-

vk;k izkFkhZ dks fookfnr ifjlj dh fgrs’k o fnO; ds O;olk;

ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkfod vko”;drk gS \

----- izkFkhZ

4-

vuqrks’k \“

After taking into consideration the evidence adduced by

the parties, the Rent Tribunal decided the Issue Nos.1 and 3 in

favour of the respondent, however, decided the Issue No.2 against

it and passed the decree of eviction vide judgment dated

01.08.2011.

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred

an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal

vide judgment dated 28.05.2015 has set aside the judgment

passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 01.08.2011, however,

remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal while framing three new