Dismissed

Bhupesh Machinery Mart v. Mahesh Chandra

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2011CW/5728/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders passed by the Rent Tribunals. Upholding the Tribunals' finding that the landlord evicted the tenant for bona fide necessity to open his office shop, the Court granted four months to vacate the premises pending execution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to vacate premises in four months and pay rent pending handover, subject to undertaking.

Bhupesh Machinery Mart Vs Mahesh Chandra — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

!! 1 !!

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: O R D E R :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5728/2011 (Bhupesh Machinery Mart Vs. Mahesh Chandra)

¶5

Date of Order :: 02.08.2011

¶6

P R E S E N T

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

¶8

Mr. Vinay Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondent.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal (Rent Control) NO.51/2010, whereby, the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Tribnunal Case No.06/2008.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that the respondentplaintiff filed an application against the petitioner-defendant for eviction from a shop rented to the petitioner situated at Rajendra Marg, Road, Bhilwara on the ground of bona fide necessity. The respondent-plaintiff is a practicing lawyer of Bhilwara and for the purpose of construction of his office, he preferred an application for eviction against the petitioner-defendant from the shop in question before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara.

¶12

!! 2 !!

¶13

The Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara after due trial and recording evidence vide its judgment dated 15.02.2010 allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff and directed that petitioner should be evicted from the shop in question. Against the said judgment, an appeal was preferred by the petitionerdefendant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara.

¶14

The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara after hearing learned counsel for the parties, finally delivered the judgment dated 21.05.2011, whereby, the Appellate Rent Tribunal upheld the judgment dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments of both the Tribunals deserve to be quashed for the reason that respondent-plaintiff is not practicing lawyer, so also, the finding of Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the facts, therefore, the judgments of both the Tribunals are totally illegal and contrary to the facts.

¶16

Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per settled law if landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity, then burden is on the landlord to prove that he is in the need of disputed premises. But here in this case, the landlord has unable to prove the bona fide and reasonable necessity of disputed premises, therefore, both the judgments deserve to be quashed.

¶17

Lastly, it is submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion that no case is made out for interference then appropriate time to vacate the premises may be granted.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of

¶19

!! 3 !!

¶20

the opinion that learned Tribunal has categorically gave issuewise finding that the respondent-plaintiff is a practicing lawyer and for the purpose of opening his office, he is in the need of shop in question.

¶21

Upon perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that after framing issue of bona fide necessity, learned Rent Tribunal gave finding that landlord is entitled for decree of eviction on the basis of entire evidence adduced on record.

¶22

Therefore, the aforesaid finding which is further upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara does not require any interference for the reason that there is ample evidence on record, upon which, the finding has been given by the Tribunal with regard to bona fide necessity of the premises in question in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

¶23

In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Tribunals. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, four months' time is hereby granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question provided he furnishes undertaking before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara that he will handover the vacant possession of the premises in question within a period of four months and will pay the rent till handing over the possession to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.

¶25

AKC/- S/91

Bhupesh Machinery Mart v. Mahesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupesh Machinery Mart v. Mahesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medha Eng. Con. Pvt. Vs Mahesh Tradingh Company .

Jagdish Vs State

Om Prakash Vs State

Dinesh Bhatia and Ors. Vs State Tourism and Ors.

Deepa Ram Vs Addi. Dist. Collector II Jod. and Ors.

Mayank Kumar Bissa and Ors. Vs State Tourism and Ors.