Allowed

Lrs of Jagananth v. Sanwarmal

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2015CSA/226/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second appeal by the landlord, holding that the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the eviction decree. The Court ruled that a tenant cannot dictate terms regarding the landlord's bona fide necessity for his own use. The eviction was restored with a direction for possession within one year and payment of mesne profits.

What did the court decide?

Eviction decree restored; Tenant to deliver possession within one year; To pay mesne profits at Rs. 5,000/month from March 2015 with interest on arrears.

Lrs of Jagananth Vs Sanwarmal — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶2

1/13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶4

:: JUDGMENT ::

¶5

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003.

¶6

LRs of Jagan Nath S/o Raghunath Tapadia & Ors.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sanwar Mal

¶9

Date of Judgment :::: 9^th February, 2015.

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, for the appellants-plaintiffs. Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondent-defendant.

¶14

<<>>

¶15

BY THE COURT :

¶16

This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana in Civil Appeal No. 2/1998 (148/198)

¶17

“Sanwar Mal S/o Jagannath Mahajan Vs. LRs of Jagnath S/o Raghunath Tapadia” who allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent-defendant and reversed the judgment and decree dated 05.12.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deedwana in Civil Original Case No. 113/1993

¶18

Jagan Nath S/o Raghunath Tapadia Vs. Sanwar Mal.” by which, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had decreed the

¶19

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶20

2/13

¶21

suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of arrears of rent and dispossession of the defendant from the suit shop situated at Deedwana, District Nagaur and granted eviction decree of the defendant-Sanwar Lal. But, by the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2003, the learned Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.12.1997 hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs.

¶22

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants, who were the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, against the reversal of the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. 4. The brief of the present case is as follows : That the original plaintiff Jagannath S/o late Shri Raghunagh Maheshwari had filed the civil suit aforesaid (No. 113/1993 ) (Old No. 94/1992 ) with the averments that the defendant Sanwar Mal S/o late Shri Jagannath Kumpawat took the suit shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month on 01.09.1981 and executed a rent note on that day itself in favour of the plaintiff. It was stipulated in the rent note that the rent of the suit shop for every six months will be given in advance and the electricity charges will be separate from the rent. The plaintiff wanted eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The ground of bona fide need of the suit shop in question for the son

¶23

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶24

3/13

¶25

of the plaintiff was also raised. It was also averred that a two storey shop situated at Chokhadia Bheruji is owned by the defendant and was presently lying vacant and, therefore, the defendant could shift his business over there. Therefore, comparative hardship was alleged in favour of the plaintiff. In the last, the plaintiff had prayed for grant of eviction decree and also prayed for decree for due rent and mesne profits.

¶26

By filing the written statement to the plaint aforesaid, the defendant denied the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and also averred that the all the major sons of the plaintiff, including Anil Kumar, for whose bona fide necessity was averred, are doing their respective business at Jodhpur, Deedwana and Sujangarh. Therefore, the bona fide necessity was denied by the defendant-tenant. It was also averred that the shop mentioned in para 3 (3) of the plaintiff had come in the share of the elder brother namely, Ram Niwas and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to claim ownership over the same. It was averred that except the suit shop in question, there was no shop with the defendant and his business is in good condition in this shop. Therefore, it was averred that the defendant will be facing more hardships by vacating the shop.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many four issues arising for determination

¶28

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶29

4/13

¶30

in the case. The learned Trial Court had held in its judgment and decree dated 05.12.1997 as under:-

¶31

“बहस क� द�र�न व�द�न अध��क� पत��द� न� ��द� पक क� ओर स� पर�कक� स�क�गण क� सशपथ कथन! क� ओर न#�#�ल# क� ध#�न आकव'(� कर #ह �क( दद#� कक ��द� पक क� ओर स� पर�कक� स�क�गण क� सशपथ कथन! क� ओर न#�#�ल# क� ध#�न आकव'(� कर #ह �क( दद#� कक ��द� पक क� ओर स� पर�कक� स�क�गण क� कथन! म, व�र-��भ�स ह/, इसलल#� उनक� कथन व�शसन�# नह�4 ह/। अतनल क6 म�र ब�र-जग�र नह�4 ह/ , ��द� क� सभ� प6त �4�� कर�� ह9 इसलल#� ��द� पक क- व��दद� द6क�न क� क-ई #6कक#6क ए�4 सद�व�क तनज� आ�श#क�� नह�4 ह/। उलल�खन�# ह/ कक अतनल क6 म�र क� ब�र-जग�र ह-न� �थ� ��द� क� सभ� प6त! क� �4�� ह-न� आदद क� बबनद6 पर ज/स� कक ऊपर व��चन कक#� ज� च6क� ह/ इसलल#� प6न: इन बबनद6ओ4 पर क-ई व��चन करन� क� आ�श#क�� दवEग� नह�4 ह-�� ह/।

¶32

जह�4 �क ��द� पक क� ओर स� पर�कक� स�क�गण क� कथन! म, व�र-��भ�स ह-न� � उनक� कथन अव�शसन�# ह-न� क� पश ह/, इस समबन� म, #ह �थ# उलल�खन�# ह/ कक हस�ग� व��दक क� अन�ग( म6ख# व�च�रण�# बबनद6 #ह ह/ कक क#� ��द� क- अपन� प6त अतनल क6 म�र क� लल#� गलल� ककर�ण� क� व#�प�र कर��न� ह � 6 व��दद� पररसर क� #6कक#6क ए�4 सद�व�क आ�श#क�� ह/ अथ�� नह�4? इस बबनद6 पर ज/स� कक ऊपर व��चन कक#� ज� च6क� ह/ कक इस बबनद6 पर��द� पक क� ओर स� पर�कक� स�क�गण क� कथन! म, क-ई महत�पPण( ए�4 स�थ(क पकQ त� क�

¶33

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶34

5/13

¶35

व�र-��भ�स दवEग� नह�4 ह-�� ह/ क#!कक �� अपन� पत�पर�कण म, अव�चलल� ए�4 अख4कR� रह� ह/ और अपन� ब#�न! म, ऐस� क-ई ब�� नह�4 ब��ई ह/ , जजसस� #ह पकट ह-�� ह- कक अतनल क6 म�र क-ई व#�प�र कर�� ह- और �ह ब�र-जग�र नह�4 ह-।

¶36

अ�: उप#6(क व��च न क� पररण�स�रप #ह सपE पकट ह-�� ह/ कक व��दद� द6क�न क� ��द� क- #6कक#6क ए�4 सद�व�क तनज� आ�श#क�� ह/। अ�: #ह व��दक ��द� क� पक म, � पत��द� क� व�रद तनणY� कक#� ज�� ह/।"

¶37

The learned Trial Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deedwana, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for eviction vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.1997 in the following manner::-

¶38

आद�श

¶39

अ�: कRक� बहक ��द� व�रद पत��द� तनमन पक�र स� प�रर� क� ज�� ह/ :-

¶40

(1).कक ��द�, पत��द� स� ��द पत क� चरण स4ख#� एक म, �रण(� पड�स क� व��दद� द6क�न क- ��स�व�क ए�4 भ�त�क रप स� ख�ल� कर��कर इसक� ��स�व�क ए�4 भ�त�क कबज� प�प करन� क� अध�क�र� ह-ग�,

¶41

(2).कक पत��द�, ��द� क- उक व��दद� पररसर क� ��स�व�क ए�4 भ�त�क कबज� तनण(# क� ��र�ख स� द- म�ह क� भ��र भ��र स_प द�,

¶42

(3).कक ��द�, पत��द� स� बक�#� ककर�#� र�लश रप#� 5,000/- �थ� ��द ल4बब� रहन� क� द�र�न स� ��-फ/ सल� प�तप कबज� 500/- र . पत�म�ह क� दर स� अन� : क�ल�न ल�भप�प करन� क� अध�क�र� ह-ग�,

¶43

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal

¶44

Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶45

6/13

¶46

परन�6 #दद पत��द� द�र� ��द� क- उक ककर�#� र�लश प�ट� क-ई र�लश अद� क� गई #� न#�#�ल# म, जम� कर��ई गई ह- �- उसक� सम�#-जन कर��न� क� अध�क�र� ह-ग�,

¶47

(4).कक ��द� पत��द� स� ��द-व## पच�( बन�#� ज��।

¶48

�दन6स�र कRक� पच�( बन�#� ज��।

¶49

Sd/(मदनग-प�ल व#�स) लसव�ल न#�#��श (क. ख.) ए�4 न#�त#क मजजसa�ट प. �ग(, R�R��न�।"

¶50

The learned lower Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana, has reversed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2003 . The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned Appellate Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶51

“द-न! पक! क� स�क# क� म4थन करन� स� #ह �थ# सपE रप स� स�मन� आ�� ह/ कक पत��द� स�4�रमल क� व��दद� द6क�न पर ककर�न� क� प6र�न� जम� ह6आ �4�� ह/। #दद #ह म�न� भ� ज��, कक उस� अन#त R�R��न� म, ककर�#� क� पररसर लमल सक�� ह/, �ब भ� व��दद� सथल स� अपन� द6क�न उठ�कर दPसर� सथ�न पर ल� ज�कर दPक�न करन� स� तनजd� ह� उसक� व#�प�र पर व�पर�� पभ�� पड�ग�। पत��द� क� प�स इस व��दद� द6क�न क� अल�� अपन� परर��र क� प�लन-प-'ण करन� क� ललए अन# क-ई �4�� नह�4 ह/। ��द� क� ओर स� ऐस� क-ई स�क# भ� पस�6� नह�4 क� गई ह/ , कक पत��द� क� प�स अन# क-ई �4�� ह/। #दद ककस� व#कक क� एक म�त जम� ह6आ �4�� क- अन#त

¶52

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶53

7/13

¶54

बदलन� पर तनजd� ह� उसक� �4�� पर व�पर�� पभ�� पड�ग�, �थ� परर��र क� आमदन� भ� पभव�� ह-ग�। दPसर� सथ�न पर उसक� �4�� इस� अन6रप कक�न� सम# म, जमकर च�लP ह-, #ह भ� तनजd� नह�4 कह� ज� सक��। दPसर� �रफ ��द� ए�4 उसक� सभ� लडक� अलगअलग �4�� म, लग� ह6ए ह/। उसक� प6त अतनल क6 म�र क- #दद ��द� क� कथन�न6स�र ब�र-जग�र म�न भ� लल#� ज�� , �ब भ� ��द� क� ह� स�क# क� अन6स�र अन#त बह6� स� द6क�न, ककर�#� पर उपलब� ह-न� स� �ह अपन� �4�� च�लP कर सक�� ह/ , उस� �- व��दद� पररसर म, भ� #� अन#त भ� नए लसर� स� ह� �4�� प�रमभ करन� ह/। न#� �4�� प�रमभ करन� क� बज�# प6र�न� �4�� क- सम�प कर उसक� सथ�न पर अन#त न#� �4�� श6र करन� स� तनजd� ह� पत��द� क- अध�क कदठन�ई � कत� ह-ग�। ऐस� �थ#! ए�4 पररजसथत�#�म, इस न#�#�ल# क� म��न6स�र ��द�/पत#थY क� ओर स� पस�6� न#�त#क व�जशच# म, पत�प�दद� लसद�न� समम�न�# ह/। पर लभनन �थ# ह-न� स� ल�गP नह�4 ह-�� ह/। इस क�रण #ह ह/, कक इस म�मल� म, ��द� क� प6त अतनल क6 म�र क� ��द� ब�र-जग�र ह-न� स�बब� नह�4 कर प�#� ह/। ��द� क� ह� ग��ह उसक� सभ� लडक- क� अलग-अलग �4�� ह-न� स��क�र कर�� ह/। अतनल क6 म�र अभ� �क ��द� क� ऊपर तनभ(र कर�� ह/, � ब�र-जग�र ह/, इस ब�र� म, भ� ��द� क� सपE ए�4 व�शसन�# स�क# नह�4 आ#� ह/। पत��द� क� प�स अपन� परर��र क� प�लन करन� क� ललए एक म�त व��दद� द6क�न �4�� क� रप म, ह/, दPसर� क-ई �4�� पत��द� क� प�स नह�4 ह/। ��द� न� व��दद� पररसर म, अपन� प6त अतनल क6 म�र क� ललए ककर�न� � गलल� क� �4�� कर��न� क� ललए

¶55

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶56

8/13

¶57

क#� - क#� �/#�रर#�e कर ल� ह/ , इस ब�र� म� भ� क-ई स�क# नह�4 आ#� ह/। इसक� अत�ररक व��दद� पररसर ख�ल� ह-न� स� ��द� क� अप�क� पत��द� क- अध�क कदठन�ई � अस6व�� ह-�� ह/। अ�: इन द-न! बबनद6ओ4 क- #-ग# अ��नसथ न#�#�ल# न� ��द� क� पक म, तनणY� करन� म, त6दट क� ह/। ��द�/पत#थY क� व�द�न अलभभ�'क क� ओर स� पस�6� म�नन�# उचच�म न#�#�ल# ए�4 म�नन�# र�ज. उचच न#�#�ल# क� तनण(#! म, ज- लसद�न� पत�प�दद� ककए गए ह/, उनह�4 क- दवEग� रख�� ह6ए #ह न#�#�ल# इस तनषक'( पर पह64च�� ह/, कक व�च�र��न म�मल� म, व��दद� पररसर क� ब�ब� ��द� अपन� प6त क� ललए सद�� , #6कक#6क आ�श#क�� स�बब� करन� म, सफल नह�4 रह� ह/। अ�: द-न! व��दक! क� तनण(# अप�ल�थY/पत��द� क� पक म, �थ� ��द�/पत#थY क� व�रद �# कक#� ज�� ह/।"

¶58

On the basis of its discussion, the learned lower Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana, has passed the final order in the following manner:-

¶59

" आद�श

¶60

अप�ल�थ�i( क� #ह अप�ल म# खच�( स��क�र क� ज�� ह/। #-ग# अ��नसथ न#�#�ल# क� तनण(# ए�4 कRक� ददन�4क 5.12.97 क- अप�स� कर ��द� क� द�� व�रद पत��द� ख�ररज क� ज�� ह/। कRक� पच�( तन#म�न6स�र �/#� ह-।

¶61

Sd/(म6र�र� ल�ल शम�() अपर जजल� ए�4 स�शन न#�#��श R�R��न�।"

¶62

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶63

9/13

¶64

Being aggrieved by the appellate judgment and decree dated 17.05.2003, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Jagannath S/o late Shri Raghunath had preferred the present second appeal and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the present second appeal was admitted by a coordinate bench vide order dated 10.12.2003 and following substantial questions of law were framed:

¶65

“1. Whether the learned appellate Judge has erred in reversing the decision of the learned trial court without dealing with the meeting with the reasonings of the learned trial court?

¶66

Whether the learned appellate Judge has erred in failing to consider the principles of law governing the consideration of reasonable and bona fide necessity of landlord of the suit premises for the business of his son?

¶67

Whether any job undertaken by the son of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit for eviction operate against need of starting independent business in the suit premises?

¶68

Whether a landlord could be compelled to opt for rental premises for the need of his son despite having his own shop with a tenant?

¶69

Whether the learned appellate Judge has erred in not considering the question of default in payment of rent by the tenant on the basis of material on record and whether the findings by the learned appellate court remain wholly perverse?

¶70

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶71

10/13

¶72

The learned counsel Mr. J.K. Bhaiya appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that the learned Appellate Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff's son Anil Kumar could have taken another shop other than the suit shop in question and could have started his business in the other shop which are lying vacant but if the defendant is removed from the suit shop in question, then he would suffer more hardships than the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submitted that a tenant cannot dictate term to the landlord about his bona fide need and it is only the landlord who is the best judge to decide his need.

¶73

Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the respondent-defendant without much controverting the findings of facts and rightly so submitted that in case, the suit shop is not used by the plaintiff as to the best of his information, the son namely, Anil Kumar, of the plaintiff is doing his business very well at some other place then, the plaintiff may be directed to hand over back the possession of the suit shop to the defendant-tenant as per Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, 1950. He also urged that the defendant-tenant would be advised to move the Trial Court by moving an application under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for extending the benefit of Section 15 of the Act, if the occasion so arises.

¶74

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶75

11/13

¶76

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record of the case including the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the learned First Appellate Court has committed an error apparent in reversing the well reasoned judgment and eviction decree of the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the substantial questions of law as framed by this Court and quoted herein above are required to be answered in favour of the appellantsplaintiffs and this second appeal deserves to be allowed. It is well settled by catena of judgments that neither the tenant nor even the Court can substitute its own wisdom and dictate term of bona fide need to the landlord as to how his business requirements wold be satisfied. Here, the learned Appellate Court has gone to the extent of suggesting to the landlord that his son Anil Kumar could start his kirana business in other shops but tenants' established business cannot be disturbed. This is a clear perversity in the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court.

¶77

Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs – Legal Representatives of the original plaintiff Jagan Nath S/o Raghunath Maheshwari is allowed while answering the substantial questions of law, as framed and quoted herein above, in their favour. No orders as to

¶78

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶79

12/13

¶80

costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and to both the parties concerned forthwith.

¶81

However, in the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiff within a period of one year i.e. on or before 31.03.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @Rs.5,000/- per month [Rupees Five Thousand only] commencing from March , 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15^th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the appellants/plaintiffs also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of one year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondent/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the appellants/ plaintiffs within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum . The respondent/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The respondent-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid

¶82

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.226/2003. LRs of Jagan Nath Vs. Sanwar Mal .. Judgment dated 09.02.2015

¶83

13/13

¶84

conditions in the Trial Court within three months and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the appellants-plaintiffs within a period of one year from today i.e., on or before 31.03.2016 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the appellantsplaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

¶85

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶86

/Mohan/ / S-75 /

Lrs of Jagananth v. Sanwarmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Jagananth v. Sanwarmal

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

Shashikant Rathi Vs Canara Bank and Anr.

Ravindra Singh Vs Abbinandan Prasad and Ors.

Mahendra Singh Vs Moti Lal and Ors.

Devaram Vs D.F.O.,Rasala Road and Ors.

Himmata Ram Vs Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Tiwari

The Sirohi Sahkari Bhoomi V.B. and Anr. Vs Rajendra Kumar