Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside the impugned judgment dated 16-03-2023, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (‘the Appellant Rent Tribunal’), Dr. Nupur Bhati, J.* opined that the bona fide necessity of the respondent- landlord was to be decided by herself and even if, the alternate premises were available, then also it was for the landlord to choose a more suitable premise for carrying on the business by herself and the petitioner-tenant could not dictate as to from which premise she should start the business. Further, the Court opined that the tenant was not able to demonstrate the extreme hardship caused to him upon vacating the premises in dispute. The litigation had consumed ten years and thus, the hardship suffered by the landlord was more than the tenant. Furthermore, the object of Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘the 2001 Act’) was to relieve the landlords from hardship so that he gets the suit premises vacated early for his personal use. Thus, the Court opined that the order dated 16-03-2023, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur did not require any interference, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
Bona fide necessity of the property will be decided by the landlord,
Background
In an instant case, the property in question was owned by the respondent’s father-in-law, who constructed various shops, out of which was one shop was let out to the petitioner’s mother. The monthly rent was increased from time to time with the parties’ consent and after the death of the respondent’s father-in-law, subsequently, the respondent-landlord became the owner of the entire property and was collecting the rent from the tenants since then. Meanwhile, after the death of the petitioner’s mother, the petitioner-tenant became the owner of the shop that was rented to them.
The landlord preferred an application dated 02-03-2015, before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (‘the Rent Tribunal’) under Section 9(i) of the 2001 Act, against the tenant for eviction of one shop, which was let out on rent to the present tenant, on the ground that the landlord was a 48-year-old unemployed lady, and after the death of her husband, the family had no source of income to maintain themselves. The landlord further added that she had three daughters out of which one was unmarried andthe rental income from other shops was not sufficient for her and her daughter therefore she intended to start a business of artificial jewelry for which no premises was available with her. Thus, she claimed reasonable and bonafide requirement of suit premises for business of artificial jewellery.
The Rent Tribunal vide judgement dated 27-07-2022 dismissed the application filed by the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Appellant Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 16-03-2023. Thus, aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the tenant preferred the present petition.
The tenant submitted that the landlord had already received the rent in advance up to the date 31-12-2015 on 18-02-2015 and during the currency of tenancy, the eviction petition was filed by landlord on 02-03-2015 without giving any notice for termination of the tenancy thus the petition claiming for vacant possession of the premises was premature and the same was not maintainable. The tenant also submitted that the necessity shown by the landlord could notbe considered to be reasonable and bona fide in any manner as, the landlord had concealed the material facts and did not disclose complete and correct facts before the court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the tenant had not denied the fact that the landlord was a widowed lady having three children, out of which, one girl child was unmarried and was pursuing her studies. The Court relied on Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi, (2016) 10 SCC 209 and opined that the bona fide necessity of the landlord was to be decided by herself and even if, the alternate premises were available, then also it was for the landlord to choose a more suitable premise for carrying on the business by herself and the tenant could not dictate as to from which premise she should start the business.
The Court further opined that, as the premises in dispute was just behind the landlord’s residence, it would be much suitable for the landlord to run the business from the shop, which was close to her house, and where even her unmarried daughter would also be able to assist her in running the business of artificial jewellery.
The Court noted that the landlord had also submitted that the property in dispute would be more suitable to her for starting the business, as it was in the main market and would be profitable for her to run the business, and opined that the landlord was the best person to decide the place of starting her business, and no one other than her, could take a decision for her to decide a suitable place for running the business. Further, the Court opined that the tenant was not able to demonstrate the extreme hardship caused to him upon vacating the premises in dispute. The litigation had consumed ten years and thus, the hardship suffered by the landlord was more than the tenant. Furthermore, the object of Section 9(i) of the 2001 Act was to relieve the landlords from hardship so that he gets the suit premises vacated early for his personal use.
Thus, the Court opined that the order dated 16-03-2023, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur did not require any interference, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
[ABC v. XYZ, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 175, decided on 18-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Jagdish Chandra Vyas, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Avin Chhangani, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Beautifully explained
Nice presentation judgement and law.