AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara vide
which the appeal filed by the petitioner - tenant against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara allowing the
eviction petition filed by the respondent â€" landlord was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for setting aside the impugned orders submitted that the respondent No.3 filed the eviction petition
after purchasing the two shops. In case, he was in bonafide need, he would have purchased the vacant shops. Secondly, the respondent at the
first instance stated that he will demolish the shops and will do business but did not disclose what type of business he will carry out. A false need
was concocted in his petition. Subsequently, he stated that he will demolish the wall between the two shops and thus changed his stand.Â
Subsequently, it was stated by the respondent No.3 that he will do the business of Sarafa. On a specific query, he stated during cross-examination
that he will start the business with 100 grams of gold which on the face of it shows that the ground of bona fide need was false. If at all, he can
always do business from one shop. He does not need two shops. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case
of Indrasen Jain vs. Rameshwardas reported in 2005(1) WLC (SC) Civil â€" 424 to contend that purchasing of the property immediately before filing
of the eviction petition goes to show that there was no bonafide need, however, in case there was bonafide need, the landlord would have purchased a
vacant possession instead of a tenanted shop.  While relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand
Gupta reported in AIR 1999 SC 2507, it was contended that the High Court can always exercise its revisional jurisdiction to see whether the
judgments passed by the courts below were in accordance with law.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment rendered in
the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali reported in AIR 2010 SC 2679 to contend that need must be real and genuine and not a pretext to evict the
tenant.
Heard.
The respondent No.3 filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from rented shops in dispute on the ground of personal and bonafide
necessity. The Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 02.08.2013 allowed the eviction petition and passed an order of eviction which was
upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. Both the Tribunals gave categorical finding of the fact with regard to personal and bonafide
necessity of the respondent â€" landlord.
The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta (supra) itself lays down that the High Court in its
revisional jurisdiction can enter into reappraisal of the evidence only for the limited purpose to test whether the order of the Rent Controller is
according to law or not. No such legal issue has been raised before this Court except as mentioned above. In fact the judgment rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Faruk Ilahi Tamboli and another Vs. B.S. Shankarrao Kokate (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others reported in
(2016) 15 SCC 431 answers the very argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the purchase of the property occupied by the
tenant immediately before the eviction petition. Para 17 of the said judgment reads thus :
“It was not the case of the respondents, that any business activities were being carried out by the appellants independently, from their father and
uncle, when the civil suit was filed. It certainly cannot be the claim at the behest of a tenant, that the owner of a premises must continue in business
with his parents or relations, assuming there was a joint business activity, to start with. That is usual, and happens all the time when children come of
age. And thereafter, they must have the choice to run their own life, by earning their own livelihood. The property owner has the right to use his
property as he chooses, and if the appellants in the instant case had purchased the suit property, for running their own business, we find no irregularity
therein, nor can there be any doubt about their bona fide desire to run the proposed business in the premises, independent of the other family members.
The premises measuring a mere 9.7 square meters, we are satisfied would be most suitable for the business proposed by the appellants, namely, for
selling betel-nuts and betel- leaves. This is the usual size of the shops engaged in such business.â€
Once the authorities below have taken into consideration all the circumstances and come to the conclusion that the requirement of the respondent
No.3 is bonafide, this Court as a Court of appeal cannot go into this especially when no such argument has been raised which may enable this Court to
take a different view than as has been held by the two courts below.
Dismissed accordingly.Â