Dismissed

Smt. Kamla Bai v. Lake Pala Ce Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.,andOR

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2014SAW/552/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the special appeal against the Single Judge's order restoring the Rent Tribunal's eviction certificate. The Court held that the Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in substituting its own wisdom for the factual finding of bonafide necessity and that the Rent Tribunal's view on the landlord's primary duty to determine suitability was correct.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is dismissed. The Rent Tribunal order dated 14.9.2007 is restored with modification permitting the appellant to retain premises until 4.1.2015.

Smt. Kamla Bai Vs Lake Pala Ce Hotels and Motels P… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.552/2013 In SB Civil Writ Petition No.2070/2013

¶3

Smt. Kamla Bai v.

¶4

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶5

Date of Judgment :: 4^th July, 2014

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN

¶7

Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari] Ms. Vandana Bhansali ] for the appellant-petitioner. Mr. Manish Shishodia ] Mr. Ramil Mehta ] for the respondents.

¶8

This special appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment dated 5.4.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2070/2013. By the judgment impugned learned Single Judge reversed the judgment dated 6.2.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No.25/2007, Smt. Kamla Bai v. The Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (Private) Limited.

¶9

Necessary facts of the case are that the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur by its judgment dated 18.10.2007 granted a certificate for eviction by accepting the bonafide necessity advanced by the landlord, the Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Private Limited. The Tribunal after considering entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the need extended by the landlord for having rented premises evicted is bonafide. The finding given by the Rent Tribunal was reversed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by holding that in view of the statement made

¶10

-2-

¶11

by Ajay Chandra Jain (PW-1) that the landlord had and has other premises beside the disputed premises, is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the need extended can very well be met by using alternative premises. Learned Single Judge by relying upon several judgments of this Court held that the need, bonafide and reasonable both were fully established by the landlord and it was not open for the Tribunal to substitute its own wisdom in this regard.

¶12

Before us, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Appellate Rent Tribunal altered finding on basis of the stand taken by the landlord about having alternative premises to meet with the need extended.

¶13

We have considered the argument advanced and also examined the order impugned.

¶14

We are having no hesitation in saying that the First Appellate Tribunal should not interfere with the findings of fact given by the original court unless arising at a conclusion about its perversity or at a conclusion that the finding given is having no foundation to stand.

¶15

In the instant matter the bonafide necessity of the landlord was accepted by the Rent Tribunal after examining the entire material available and by accepting the principle that the issue as to how the need is to be met is primarily an issue i.e. required to be best examined by the landlord himself. In our opinion the finding given

¶16

-3-

¶17

by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any such error that warranted interference by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Rent Tribunal applied its own wisdom about suitability of the premises to meet necessity of the landlord. As a matter of fact the law does not permit such determination without having a cogent finding that the bonafide need shown is nothing but an effort to get rid from the tenant with wrong representation of facts. In the instant matter no eventuality was existing to arrive at such conclusion and to alter the finding of fact given by the Rent Tribunal. In view of it, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge rightly restored the judgment given by the original court. No interference of this Court while exercising authority under special appeal jurisdiction hence is desirable.

¶18

The special appeal is dismissed accordingly. The judgment dated 14.9.2007 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Case No.120/2004 is restored with modification that appellant Smt. Kamla Bai be permitted to retain the premises in question with her upto 4.1.2015. Suffice to mention that all other conditions referred in the judgment and order dated 14.9.2007 shall remain intact and those only are required to be adhered by the parties concerned.

¶19

(ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶20

kkm/ps

Smt. Kamla Bai v. Lake Pala Ce Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.,andOR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamla Bai v. Lake Pala Ce Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.,andOR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darga Ram @ Gunga Vs State of Raj.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of Raj.

Mohan Vs State of Raj.

Mangi Lal and Ors. Vs Dalchand Nagda and Anr.

Kishan Vs State of Raj.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Raj.