Premratan vs M/S. Ramchandra And Co
2022 Latest Caselaw 2159 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 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. Narendra Thanvi, on VC

                                 Mr. Nishank Madhan, on VC
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, on VC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

08/02/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised

to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the

following prayer:

"1. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this honble court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and

2. Quash the judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018 (annexure-6) passed by the learned appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner.

(2 of 6) [CW-819/2019]

3. Any other writ or order, the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner

is the landlord of the property in dispute, and on count of default

in payment of due rent by the respondents-tenants, despite

service of notices upon them, the petitioner-landlord sought to

evict the respondents-tenants on the ground of bonafide and

personal necessity, in particular. Learned counsel further submits

that the respondents-tenants had also sublet the property in

dispute to a third party, and therefore, eviction so sought was on

valid grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord also submit that

in order to enforce his right to evict the respondents-tenants from

the property in question, the petitioner had filed an appropriate

application before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner which ruled

in petitioner's favour, vide judgment and certificate dated

02.04.2016, but however, the same was appealed against by the

respondents-tenants before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal,

Bikaner, which ruled in the favour of the respondents-tenants, vide

judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord also submit that

the judgment so passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal

was based solely on the cross examination of P.W.-1 Brijratan

Rathi, which is unfair and unjust, and thus, aggrieved by such

(3 of 6) [CW-819/2019]

determination, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of

filing the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord relied upon the

judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath G.

Panhale (dead) by LRs vs. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co.,

1999 AIR SC 3864 (B); Boramma vs. Krishna Gowda & Ors.,

2000 (4) CCC 148 (ii); Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. Vs. Idrish

Ali Laskar, 2018 (2) CCC 496 (i) and; Ambadas Khanduji

Shinde & Ors. Vs. Ashok Sadashiv Mamukar & Ors., 2017

(3) CCC 824 (ii).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order

dated 15.03.2021 passed by this Court in Ajmal Hussain Vs.

Prem Ratan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/2020),

whereby this Court has declined to accept the ground as raised on

behalf of the petitioner therein, that since the landlord has

accepted that he was paying the income tax, therefore, it cannot

be inferred that there was existence of any bonafide or personal

necessity of the suit premises therein.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-

tenants submits that the petitioner-landlord in fact does not have

the bonafide or personal necessity, so as to justify his claim

regarding eviction of the respondents-tenants from the property in

question, and the averment made by the petitioner-landlord,

before the learned Rent Tribunal that his three sons are

unemployed and need the property in question for residential

purposes, is a falsehood as the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal

has rightly held that each of the three sons are employed, since

they were filing the necessary income tax returns.

(4 of 6) [CW-819/2019]

9. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits

that the petitioner-landlord wanted to receive the enhanced rent

of the property in question, and that, the same was the actual

reason for seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from the

property in question.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents-tenants further submits

that the property in question in fact has not been sublet to any

third party, and the same has also not been proved by the

petitioner-landlord, in any manner whatsoever.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited above.

12. This Court observes that the judgment and certificate dated

06.10.2018 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal,

whereby it was held that the ground for eviction, more

particularly, the personal and bonafide necessity did not exist,

merely on the ground that the sons of the petitioner-landlord were

filing income tax returns is not sustainable in the eye of the law.

Furthermore, this Court observes that this finding of the learned

Rent Appellate Tribunal regarding the filing of the income tax

returns, was not even substantiated by any documents or

evidence brought on record before it, but the said finding was only

arrived at on the sole basis of the cross examination of PW 1-

Brijratan Rathi; such finding of the Rent Appellate Tribunal thus

appears to be erroneous.

The level of information available with the tenant was so low as is

depicted in the cross examination (testimony of PW-1 Brijratan

Rathi), relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

(5 of 6) [CW-819/2019]

"izsejru edku ekfyd ds fdrus yM++ds gS esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS A izsejru ds nks yM+dksa ds uke irk gS A ............"

13. This Court also observes the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath (supra) wherein it was held

that the test of need or requirement of the landlord must not be

equated to 'dire or absolute or compelling necessity'; in

Boramma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex held that it would not be a

sound rule of appreciation of evidence to pick up an answer from

the cross examination of a witness and draw inference taking it in

isolation; in Flora Nahoum (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that even if the landlord is able to make out only one ground

out of the several grounds for eviction, he is entitled to seek

eviction of his tenant from the suit premises on the basis of sole

ground which was made out under Rent Act; and lastly in

Ambadas (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that

eviction of the tenant from the shop premises, on the ground of

personal necessity of the landlord, so as to enable his sons to be

settled and run independent businesses, was genuine.

14. This Court therefore observes that in view of the

aforementioned precedential backdrop, the findings arrived at by

the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal in the present case, was not a

valid and sound rule of appreciation of evidence, more particularly,

the pick and choose from the testimony of a witness, inspite of the

fact that the same was not corroborated by any evidence.

15. Thus, in the firm opinion of this Court, the impugned

judgment and certificate so passed by the learned Rent Appellate

Tribunal is not only based on a poor logic and reasoning, but is

(6 of 6) [CW-819/2019]

also contrary to law of the land, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

15.2 As regards the judgment and certificate passed by the

learned Rent Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the same

correctly appreciated the evidence pertaining to the present

dispute, as laid before it, while recording the finding that since one

ground of eviction of the respondent-tenants viz. the ground of

bonafide and personal necessity of the petitioner-landlord was

sufficiently proven, therefore, the right of the petitioner-landlord

to evict the respondents-tenants from the property in question

existed.

16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, which takes

strength from the aforementioned precedent laws, the present

petition is allowed, and accordingly, while quashing and setting

aside the impugned judgment and certificate dated 06.10.2018

passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bikaner, the

judgment and certificate dated 02.04.2016 passed by the learned

Rent Tribunal, Bikaner is upheld. All pending applications stand

disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

46-skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)