Ashok Katariya vs Kantichand
2022 Latest Caselaw 13799 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8047/2022

Ashok Katariya S/o Shri Anraj Ji Katariya, Aged About 55 Years, 27-A-Amarnath Building, Jalori Bari, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Kantichand S/o Madanlal Ji, House No. 17-E-321, Choupasani Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Rajendra Katariya S/o Late Shri Jaswantraj Katariya, Subhash Shoe Mart, First B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Tarun Katariya S/o Late Shri Jaswantraj Katariya, Rajshree Foot Wear, Second B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

4. Rakesh Katariya S/o Late Shri Jaswantraj Katariya, Rajshree Foot Wear, Second B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

5. Smt. Manju @ Sheetal D/o Late Shri Jaswantraj Katariya, Rajshree Foot Wear, Second B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

6. Smt. Umadevi W/o Late Shri Jaswantraj Katariya, Rajshree Foot Wear, Second B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

7. Subhas Katariya S/o Shri Anraj Katariya, Through Legal Heirs 7/1. Smt. Meenakshi W/o Late Shri Shubhas Katariya, 360, Fourth B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.). 7/2. Manoj S/o Late Shri Shubhas Katariya, 360, Fourth B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

7/3. Prithivi Raj S/o Late Shri Shubhas Katariya, 360, Fourth B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

7/4. Smt. Sapna D/o Late Shri Shubhas Katariya, W/o Rajendra Jain, Muthho Ka Bas, Piparcity, Tehsil Pipar, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

8. Smt. Jamna Devi W/o Shri Mohanlal Ji D/o Late Shri Anrajji Katariya, In Front Of Bhairubag, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

9. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Subhas Mehta D/o Shri Anraj Ji Katariya, Sristri Complex, Meera Road, Thane, Distt. Maharastra.

                                                                  ----Respondents



                                           (2 of 3)               [CW-8047/2022]



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr Vinay Jain
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr Jitendra Chopra



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                          Judgment / Order

24/11/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

the judgment dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Rent

Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal'

hereinafter), whereby it has rejected the appeal filed by the

petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed by

Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the Rent Tribunal'

hereinafter).

The eviction petitioner filed an eviction petition under

the provisions of Rent Control Act solely on the ground of bonafide

necessity. It was claimed by the eviction petitioner that the

premises in question was rented out to the petitioner and now for

the purpose of carrying out a business of pharmaceutical, he is in

need of the premises in question. On the basis of the pleadings

and the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the eviction petitioner is in need of the premises in

question for running pharmaceutical business. The appeal filed by

the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal while

affirming the finding of Rent Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the material available on record, I do not find any

good reason to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by both

the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed

(3 of 3) [CW-8047/2022]

to persuade this Court to take a different view from the view taken

by both the courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly admitted

that pursuant to the judgment and recovery certificate, the

eviction petitioner already got the vacant possession of the

premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that though the possession has already been taken over

by the eviction petitioner but looking to the fact that the petitioner

was running his business in the premises in question from last so

many years, some time may be granted to vacate the premises in

question and, therefore, it is prayed that the eviction petitioner

may be directed to handover the vacant premises to the petitioner

and thereafter some time may be granted to him to vacate the

premises in question.

Learned counsel for the respondent-eviction petitioner

has refused to accept the prayer of the petitioner and submitted

that after taking over the possession of the vacant premises, the

eviction petitioner has already started his business and therefore,

it is not possible to handover the possession of the premises in

question to the petitioner.

In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this

writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

10-masif-PS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)