Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajmal Hussain vs Premratan on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/2020
Ajmal Hussain S/o Late Mujjafar Rangrej, Aged About 49 Years,
By Caste Rangrej Musalman, Resident Of Rangrejo Ki Masjid Ke
Pass, Bada Bazaar, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
Premratan S/o Mangilal, By Caste Khatri, Resident Of Dauji Ke
Mandir Ke Pass, Bikaner.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/2019
Premratan S/o Mangilal, Aged About 83 Years, By Caste Khatri,
R/o Near Dauji Temple, Dauji Road, Bikaner, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s. Ramchandra And Co., Station Road, Bikaner, District
Bikaner.
2. Brijratan S/o Surajmal,, By Caste Rathi, R/o Near Nehru
Sharda Vidyapeeth, Inside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner,
District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi
Mr. Nishank Madhan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
15/03/2021
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being
taken while hearing the matters in Court.
In Writ Petition No.5870/2020:
(Downloaded on 16/03/2021 at 08:43:57 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-5870/2020]
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the
following reliefs:
"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment &
certificate dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Rent
Tribunal, Bikaner in Civil Original (Suit) Case No.50/2012 (Premratan
versus Ajmal Rangrej) as well as the impugned judgment and certificate
dated 05.03.2020 (Annex.10) passed by the learned Appellate Rent
Tribunal, Bikaner in Appeal Order No.117/2015 (Ajmal Hussain versus
Premratan) may kindly be set aside and in consequence thereof, the
eviction petition (Annex.1) filed by the respondent-applicant may kindly be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) Costs throughout may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was allowed by the
learned trial court, and thus, those documents were required to be
considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
bonafide necessity has not been established by the landlord. He
has also drawn attention of this Court towards the statement
rendered by the petitioner, in which, the landlord accepted paying
income tax, and thus, as per him, paying the income tax indicates
that there is no bonafide necessity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments
rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Paras Mal & Anr. Vs. Bhawani
Shanker (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.133/2016) dated 27.03.2017 and
Baba Madhav Das Vs. Sunder Das & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) DNJ
(Raj.) 1009.
(Downloaded on 16/03/2021 at 08:43:57 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-5870/2020]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court
through the other evidence also and has tried to built up a case
that the bonafide necessity was not there.
Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently
opposed the submissions on the ground that there are two
consecutive judgments of the learned court below, and thus, no
interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is
called for in the given circumstances.
This Court, after seeing the judgments passed by the learned
Rent Tribunal, Bikaner dated 06.04.2015 as well as the Appellate
Rent Tribunal dated 05.03.2020, is convinced that the reasons
furnished by two concurrent courts do not call for any
interference.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
In Writ Petition No.819/2019:
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks one last
opportunity to prepare the matter.
List the matter on 28.04.2021.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
20-21-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
