1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8297/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Dharam Chand Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner & Others. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8297/2008 ......... Date of Order : 29.04.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Manoj Bhandari for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Purohit for the respondent No.3. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment passed by respondent Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (for short 'the Appellate Rent Tribunal' hereinafter) (Annex.8) dated 28.8.2008 has been challenged by the petitioner tenant whereby the appeal filed by the respondent landlord against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2005 passed by Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (for short 'the Rent Tribunal' hereinafter) on an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001' hereinafter) has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 2 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8297/2008 carefully gone through the judgment and order Annex.6 passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 01.12.2005 as also the judgment and order dated 28.8.2008 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner tenant that the respondent No.3 landlord is having the accommodation at the ground floor which is vacant and therefore, the respondent landlord can shift to that premises instead of evicting the petitioner from the rented premises in question. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a shop which was earlier run in the name of Ramdeo Pan Bhandar is now lying vacant and therefore, the respondent landlord can very well convert the said shop to a residential premises for his use and occupation at ground floor of the house. Though as per family settlement the possession of the said shop on vacation by Ramdeo Pan Bhandar is with the son of the respondent namely Ashok Kumar but since he is residing outside Bikaner and therefore, in absence of his son Ashok Kumar, the respondent landlord can convert the said shop for his residential use at ground floor of the house. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord supported the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and contended that there is no error in the findings recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and therefore, calls for 3 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8297/2008 no interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On careful perusal of the judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, in my view, the findings of facts arrived at by Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be said to have suffered from any error warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The alleged premises even according to the petitioner tenant is in possession of Ashok Kumar who is son of the respondent landlord as per the family settlement between the respondent landlord and his son Ashok which has not been disputed, on the contrary, it is the petitioner who came with a case that the shop which was vacated by Ramdeo Pan Bhandar is in the share of Ashok Kumar may be son of the respondent landlord, but in my view, the respondent landlord has a right to get the premises vacated from the petitioner for his reasonable and bonafide use as the respondent landlord is old and infirm person and suffering from serious heart ailment as also knee ailment and is unable to climb up the stairs in order to live at first floor of the premises and therefore, he reasonably and bonafidely needs the premises in question to use as residential accommodation. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has considered this contention elaborately and held that it is the landlord to decide which of the premises is 4 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8297/2008 more suitable for his residence and accordingly held that the respondent landlord is entitled to evict the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question is a commercial premises and therefore, a reasonable period of two years to vacate the premises may be granted to the petitioner and the petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question on or before expiry of two years and would continue to pay the mesne profit month by month and would furnish the undertaking to abide by the order passed by this Court in this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord has no objection in granting time for a period of 18 months commencing from 01.05.2009 on furnishing the undertaking to abide by the orders passed by this Court to vacate the premises on or before expiry of 18 months from 1.5.2009 and pay the mesne profit month by month by 15th of each month. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs, however, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises in question 5 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8297/2008 by 31st October, 2010 on the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner shall personally submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the respondent Rent Tribunal within three weeks from today to the effect that on or before 31st October, 2010, he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent No.3 landlord. He shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the premises in question; not to make any alteration; not to assign, sublet or in any manner part with possession to any other person; not to put the premises to any use other than the present use; and not to cause any nuisance. (2) The petitioner shall deposit within three weeks the arrears, if any, of the rent/ mesne profits and shall further pay to the respondent landlord the amount for use and occupation of the premises in question month by month w.e.f. 01.05.2009 or deposit this amount in the bank account of the landlord (particulars whereof may be furnished to the petitioner within two weeks from today by the respondent landlord) month by month on or before 15th day of the next month. It is made clear that upon the petitioner's failure to comply with any of the conditions aforesaid or violating any term of the undertaking, the respondent landlord shall be entitled to execute the order and the certificate forthwith in accordance with law. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 6 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8297/2008 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 14416/08 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8297/08 Date of Order : 29/04/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR. Mr. Manoj Bhandari for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Purohit for the respondent No.3. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp