Dismissed

Sumitra Sharmaa v. Appellate Rent Tribunal Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2014WRES/881/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to restore a writ regarding eviction. It upheld the Rent Tribunal's finding that the landlord failed to prove bona fide need under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, as alternative accommodation was available.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal were upheld; writ petition dismissed.

Sumitra Sharmaa Vs Appellate Rent Tribunal Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Sumitra Sharma Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal Kota & Others (S.B. Civil Restoration Application No.881/2014)

¶3

November 03, 2014.

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶5

Mr. Narendra Mishra, for the petitioner.

¶6

BY THE COURT :

¶7

The matter comes up on an application for restoration of writ petition. For the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, the application is

¶8

allowed the petition is restored to its original number.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on writ petition and perused the impugned order dated 10-4-2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal Kota as also the order dated 4-10-2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Kota.

¶10

The issue before the Rent Tribunal was as to whether the tenanted premises was bonafidely required by the petitioner-applicant landlord (hereinafter the applicant') under the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter the Act of 2001'). From the evidence on record, more particularly from the admission of the applicant's daughter herself (whose need was at the foundation of the ground for bonafide and reasonable need under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001) who appeared as a witness for the applicant before the Rent Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the tenanted premises were sought to be got vacated for a higher rent of Rs.1000/- per month. Thus the allegedly bonafide and reasonable need for the tenanted premises as propagated by the applicant, i.e. for her daughter, was negated completely. The other ground on which eviction was sought was that the respondent tenant has acquired

¶11

¶12

accommodation of his own. The Tribunal as also the Appellate Tribunal found that even though admittedly the tenant had acquired accommodation in his own name, it was a one bedroom property wholly inadequate for the tenant's family of five members and hence a case under Section 9 (j) of the Act of 2001 requiring not only availability of alternative accommodation in the tenant's own name but also its adequacy was not made out.

¶13

The only serious contention agitated by the counsel for the applicant in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the applicant is an old lady, 80 years of age requiring the tenanted premises to be occupied by her married daughter such as to tend to the applicant. The contention is untenable as from the evidence considered by both the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, it was established that the tenanted premises were situated in a small lane away from the applicant's own residence at Dadabari which residence had four vacant rooms where the applicant's daughter could continue staying if she were indeed required only to tend to her old mother.

¶14

The conclusions of the Rent Tribunal as also Appellate Rent Tribunal on the applicant not being able to make out any statutory ground for eviction as provided for under the Act of 2001 are based on evidence and the impugned judgments are well considered. No perversity can be attributed to the impugned orders, nor the same are vitiated by any mis direction in law.

¶15

In the circumstances, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶21

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Sumitra Sharmaa v. Appellate Rent Tribunal Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Sharmaa v. Appellate Rent Tribunal Ors.

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

Nawal Kishore Raigar Vs Srimat Pandey and Another

Villagers Amjanta Guwar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jitendra Singh Bhati Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Fateh Singh Mali Vs Shri Bhaskar a Sawant and Another

Ramesh Chand Meena Vs Shri Bhaskar a Sawant and Others

Badri Bai and Anr. Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.