1 (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7804/2009 Phool Chand Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner & ors. ::: (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7802/2009 Phool Chand Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner & ors. Date of Order :: 3rd August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vikas Balia ] Mr. Vinit Sanadhya ], for the petitioner. Mr. Srikant Verma, for the respondents (caveator). ... BY THE COURT: These two writ petitions, CWP No. 7804/2009 and CWP No. 7802/2009, preferred by the same tenant against the similar nature orders dated 28.02.2009 as passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Appeal No.141-A/2004 and in Appeal No.141/2004 respectively, involving almost similar facts and akin issues, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. Briefly put, the background facts and relevant aspects of the matter as involved in CWP No. 7804/2009 are that the respondent-landlord Mohanlal Solanki (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives – respondents Nos.3 2 to 6) filed a petition (No. 84/2003) before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant Phool Chand from the demised premises, said to be a basement shop situated inside Kot Gate, Bikaner and let out at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-, on the grounds referable to clauses (i), (j) and (k) of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'). The landlord alleged that the shop in question and the adjoining godown were required by him reasonably and bona fide for setting up the business of electronic parts for his unemployed son Hanuman (respondent No.3 herein). It was also asserted that the shop in question was let out to the tenant for the purpose of his business but was lying closed for about ten months as the tenant had shifted his business to the nearby premises purchased by him on 13.11.2000 from one Jagdish Daiya through registered sale deed. The premises so purchased, according to the landlord, were of two shutters whereat the tenant had started his business in the name of Annapurna Electric Company; and had also filed a suit for eviction against the tenant in occupation of a part of the purchased premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal framed the relevant issues and after taking evidence, accepted the case of the landlord in issue No.1 about his reasonable and bona fide requirement for the purpose of 3 business of his son, the respondent No.3. It is noticed that the landlord Mohan Lal expired during the pendency of the eviction petition and his legal representatives, including the present respondent No.3, were taken on record as the applicants. In issue No.2 relating to non-user of the premises, the Tribunal referred to the statement of the defendant that he was carrying on business in the new shop but his employees were working in the shop in question and, therefore, held that the issue was partly established in favour of the applicant to the extent that the original business of the tenant has been shifted but his employees were working in the suit premises. In issue No.3, relating to the question of the tenant having acquired suitable alternative premises adequate for his requirement, the Tribunal referred to the admitted position that the tenant had purchased the premises consisting of two shutters' shop and was carrying on business thereat; and, while deciding this issue in favour of the landlord, held him entitled for an order for eviction on this ground too. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the eviction petition by its judgment and order dated 24.09.2004. The petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal against the order so passed by the Rent Tribunal. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with the submissions that the applicant- 4 respondent No.3 has since taken up employment as clerk with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and hence, his need has come to an end. The Appellate Tribunal rejected such an application by its order dated 01.09.2007 with the observations that essentially the requirement was to be considered with reference to date of filing of the petition; and during the pendency of the petition or after passing of the order for eviction, if the landlord had taken up any other job or vocation, his requirement would not come to an end. The Tribunal also observed that there was no necessity of permitting the amendment on this subsequent event particularly when the respondent himself had admitted the fact about his joining the service in the Bank. The petitioner has pointed out in this petition that a writ petition was filed against the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2007 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 03.03.2008. The Appellate Tribunal considered the matter in thorough detail in its impugned judgment dated 28.02.2009 and endorsed the findings of the Rent Tribunal about bona fide requirements of the landlord and so also about the tenant having acquired suitable alternative premises. The Appellate Tribunal, accordingly, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5 The facts relating to the other writ petition, CWP No. 7802/2009, are similar to the facts noticed above. Herein, the same landlord had filed the same nature eviction petition against the same tenant (the petitioner) in relation to a godown, said to be situated adjacent to the shop referred hereinabove, that was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. It has been the case of the landlord that the godown was also required for the purpose of the said business of his son; that the demised premises had not been used for ten months before filing of the petition; and that the petitioner- tenant had purchased the nearby premises adequate for his requirement. On the similar considerations and with similar nature observations, the Tribunal allowed the petition for eviction bearing No.85/2003 by the similar nature order dated 24.09.2004; and the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to reject the appeal in relation to this matter bearing No.141/2004 on the same considerations as noticed above by a similar nature order dated 28.02.2009. Seeking to challenge to the orders aforesaid by way of these writ petitions, it is suggested on behalf of the petitioner- tenant that the learned subordinate Tribunals have not properly thrashed out the lis involved in the matter; and have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record in judicious manner. It is submitted that the learned Tribunals 6 have failed to consider the significant fact that acquiring of the other premises by the petitioner-tenant was not a new event as suggested by the landlord and as assumed by the Tribunals. According to the petitioner, the said premises had been on rent with him even before and merely because he purchased the same on 13.11.2000, it cannot be said that there was a new acquisition of the premises so as to bring the case within the four-corners of clause (j) of Section 9 of the Act. It is also submitted that the admitted fact of the employment of the respondent No.3 in the bank has not been given due consideration; and the other relevant fact, of the landlord having alternative premises at the nearby place which were lying vacant, has also not been considered by the Tribunals. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned orders are vitiated and deserve to be set aside. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions and having examined the material placed on record, this Court does not find any reason to consider any interference in these petitions. The facts of the case, the observations of the Tribunals and the admission of the petitioner-tenant leave no manner of doubt that on 13.11.2000, he did purchase the other premises consisting of two shops, one of which was in his possession wherein he was carrying on business in the name of 7 Annapurna Electric Company and another was in possession of a tenant against whom he had already filed a suit for eviction. The petitioner's statement (Annex.7) leaves no manner of doubt that he was carrying on business in the purchased premises; and the present premises, whether of shop or of godown, were unnecessarily retained by him in the name of alleged sitting of his employees. The learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly pointed out that it was not the petitioner's case that he was carrying on business at the two places because of expansion. The submissions of the petitioner that acquisition of such other premises were not of new event remain meritless. Even if the petitioner had been a tenant in such purchased premises earlier, with the event of purchase and with the admitted position of his carrying on business thereat, it is apparent that he has acquired possession of suitable premises adequate for his requirement. The event of his purchasing such alternative premises and thereby acquiring title has definitely come into existence during subsistence of present tenancy; and the landlord was definitely entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner on such a ground. There appears no reason to interfere in the matter; more particularly looking to the admitted fact situation. 8 The ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement has also been considered by the subordinate Tribunals in accordance with law. The suggestion about availability of alternative premises with the landlord remains hollow and baseless. The petitioner had not been able to put forward any such specific case whether in the cross-examination of the respondent No.3 Hanuman or in his own statement. A cursory suggestion about some premises being available could not have been considered sufficient by the Tribunal on the question if the landlord has available with him suitable alternative premises to cater to his requirement. The fact about the respondent No.3 having taken up some job during the pendency of the appeal was also of not much relevance nor could not have been considered eclipsing his need altogether. The learned Appellate Tribunal has duly considered such fact too in its considered judgment and the finding as arrived at, being essentially the finding of fact and being not vitiated for any perversity, does not call for any interference. Both the writ petitions remain totally bereft of substance and are, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK 9 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7802/2009 Phool Chand Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner & ors. Date of Order :: 3rd August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vikas Balia ] Mr. Vinit Sanadhya ], for the petitioner. Mr. Srikant Verma, for the respondents (caveator). ... The writ petition stands dismissed summarily vide common order made in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7804/2009 (Phool Chand Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner and others). (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK