Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balkrishan vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Ors on 14 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13405/2013
Balkrishan
----Petitioner
Versus
LRs. Of Late Smt. Shanti Devi And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Chotia for
Dr. Sachin Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hukum Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
14/12/2021
1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"The impugned judgment dated 30.05.2013
(Annex.6) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal,
Bhilwara in Rent Petition No.369/2004 and the
impugned judgment dated 29.08.2013 (Annex.8)
passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal
rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner may kindly
be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the
petitioner may kindly be allowed in toto."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the
respondent-landlord Smt. Shanti Devi preferred an application
under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, which was allowed on
account of bona fide necessity as well as revision of rent.
(Downloaded on 16/12/2021 at 08:39:54 PM)
(2 of 2) [CW-13405/2013]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that
that the rent in question has been excessively revised by the
learned Rent Tribunal and the bona fide necessity in the present
case was not made out.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
learned Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 30.05.2013 decided
the aforementioned application in favour of the respondent-
landlord, and further, the appeal preferred against the same was
also dismissed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara
vide its judgment dated 29.08.2013.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion
that the respondent-landlord was able to establish the bona fide
necessity of the disputed premises in question and the revision of
the rent was also done in accordance with law. Moreover, the
petitioner-tenant has enjoyed the tenancy of the disputed shop in
question since 1986, and thus, at this stage when the respondent-
landlord has proved the bona fide necessity of his family in regard
to the shop in question, this Court does not find any reason to
make any interference in the two concurrent orders passed by the
learned Rent Tribunal as well as the learned Rent Appellate
Tribunal, which are well reasoned
7. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
149-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
