1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3061/2009. M/s Jamna Trading Company Vs. Rent Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Date of Order :: 24th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vijay Jain, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: The petition as filed by the landlord-respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the shop situated at New Market, Hanumangarh Town (Case No. 41/2005) essentially on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement and non-user of the demised premises for over 5 years, came to be allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh by its judgment and order dated 20.02.2007. The learned Tribunal accepted the case of the respondent-landlord that he required the demised premises for expansion of his commercial activities and for storage and exhibition of the goods; and rejected the case of the petitioner- tenant that there were adequate alternative premises available with the landlord. The learned Tribunal also found proved the fact that the demised premises were closed for about 5-6 years; and observed that the tenant had failed to establish if any business was being transacted thereat. The appeal taken by the petitioner (Appeal No.9/2007) has 2 been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2009 by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh, while endorsing and affirming the findings of the learned Rent Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal noticed and rejected the contention of the tenant that there had been an admission of the landlord about another shop having fallen vacant with the observations that it was for the landlord to consider as to where the business was to be established; and further rejected the contention of the tenant-appellant made with reference to the Registration Certificate (Ex. 13) that the concerned firm of the landlord was not carrying on the business for which the requirement of the demised premises had been alleged after finding the Registration Certificate to be insufficient an evidence to support such a contention. In relation to the ground of non-user of the premises in question, the learned Appellate Tribunal noticed the statements of the tenant Jamna Devi in her cross-examination that Jai Kishan was carrying on a grocer's business thereat but found that the said Shri Jai Kishan had not been examined. The Appellate Tribunal also noticed the statement of NAW-3 Jai Ram Das, who alleged one Sonu carrying on business but again found that the said Shri Sonu was not examined either. The learned Appellate Tribunal further found that the tenant had failed to prove the assertion that 3 the premises in question remained closed only for 5-7 days while the tenant was engaged in the daughter's marriage. Thus, while rejecting the contentions of the appellant- tenant and affirming the findings of the learned Rent Tribunal, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the learned subordinate Tribunals are based on misreading of the evidence; and that it is apparent from the very assertion as made by the landlord that he has got substantial alternative premises available with him and hence, the learned subordinate Tribunals have erred in accepting his petition for eviction on the ground of alleged requirement. The learned counsel further submitted that the landlord was allegedly carrying on business in partnership and for such partnership business, no personal requirement of the landlord could have been accepted so as to evict the tenant. The learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Zabbar Vs. Mohammed Habib: 1994 DNJ (Raj.) 9 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Ram Chander Rao Vs. K. Dayanand : (2005) 13 SCC 159 and contended that the alleged personal requirement was not existing on the date of passing of the order and for the landlord having alternative 4 premises, the petition for eviction ought to have been rejected. The learned counsel yet further submitted that there is no evidence on record that the demised premises had not been used or that the petitioner had wound up the business. The learned counsel contended that the approach of the learned subordinate Tribunals had been from a wrong angle where the entire burden in relation to the core facts was cast on the tenant though the basic facts were essentially required to be established by the landlord. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider any interference in the writ jurisdiction in this matter. The finding relating to reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord is essentially a finding of fact; and perusal of the impugned orders makes it clear that the learned subordinate Tribunals, after examining the material available on record and while disbelieving and rejecting the case of the tenant about availability of suitable alternative premises with the landlord, have considered it proper to grant a certificate for recovery of possession. There appears no reason to consider any interference in such concurrent findings of fact. It cannot be said that if carrying on business in partnership, the landlord could not seek eviction of the tenant for expansion of such partnership business. 5 Even the concurrent findings on non-user of the demised premises are essentially on facts. When it is noticed that the landlord has made assertions about the demised premises having been closed for about 5 years and having not been used for the purpose they were let out; and further that the tenant came out with cryptic and uncertain suggestions about the persons carrying on business in the demised premises but did not examine such persons, the learned Tribunals cannot be faulted in arriving at the findings against the petitioner. It does not appear that the learned Tribunals have placed the initial burden of the issues on the tenant; but it is apparent that after evidence of the parties have taken a comprehensive view of the matter. The decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, proceeding essentially on their own facts, have no application whatsoever to the present facts. The present one is not a case where the personal requirement of the landlord has been shown to have totally come to an end before passing of the order for eviction; nor there appears sufficient material on record to conclude that the landlord has available with him vacant alternative premises suitable to meet with his requirement. The impugned orders do not disclose any jurisdictional error leading to manifest injustice so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 6 The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/