Dismissed

Ravish Babu v. Dwarka Prasad

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2022CSA/730/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a second appeal regarding a tenant's eviction suit under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The High Court addressed a framed substantial question of law, held that the bona fide necessity issue is factual, and dismissed the appeal as the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence on debut necessity.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; there is no order as to costs.

Ravish Babu Vs Dwarka Prasad — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 730/2003

¶3

Ravish Babu S/o Krishna Ji Through Legal RepresentativeRajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Ravish Babu aged 33 years, Resident of 4-Ba-15, Vigyan Nagar, Kota.

¶4

----Appellant-defendant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dwarka Prasad Sharma S/o Radha Krishna Sharma, resident of No.2, Cha-1, Vigyan Nagar, Kota

¶7

----Respondent-plaintiff

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶10

11/07/2022

¶11

Appellant-defendant-tenant has preferred this second appeal against judgment and decree dated 12.09.2003 passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Kota in Civil First Appeal No.51/2001, affirming the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 16.03.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Kota in Civil Suit No.143/1994 whereby his civil suit for eviction has been decreed.

¶12

The dispute between parties is about rented shop measuing 8X9 square feet situated at Vigyan Nagar, Kota.

¶13

Respondent-plaintiff instituted eviction suit, invoking provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act of 1950) on the ground of default and bonafide necessity alleging inter alia that plaintiff has taken voluntarily retirement and requires the suit shop to start his business of stationary. It was averred that defendant-tenant has

¶14

(2 of 4) [CSA-730/2003]

¶15

committed default for payment of rent from 01.07.1993 to 28.02.1994.

¶16

Defendant submitted written statement and denied both Courts.

¶17

Learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence of both parties has held that defendant has committed default, however, extended benefit of first default on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity, a decree for eviction was passed against defendant.

¶18

Appellant-defendant challenged the decree for rent and eviction by way of first appeal, the first Appellate Court, re-heard and re-considered the matter and concurred with findings of the trial Court and affirmed the decree for eviction passed on the ground of bona fide necessity.

¶19

This Court vide order dated 28.01.2004 admitted the first appeal on following substantial question of law:-

¶20

"Whether the need of the shop in question of the plaintiff respondent can be taken to be reasonable and bona fide when he has given his one shop to his relative during the pendency of the suit and that he is also sitting thereon?"

¶21

Having heard counsel for both parties and on appreciation of evidence on record, this Court finds that substantial question of law referred hereinabove is essentially a question of fact. In order to decide the question of law, the re-appreciation of evidence on record is required. Both Courts, on appreciation/ re-appreciation of evidence on record has passed the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of respondent plaintiff landlord.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CSA-730/2003]

¶24

The Supreme Court in case of Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bors. & Ors. [(1998) 6 SCC 748] and H.K. Sharma Vs. Ram Lal [(2019) 4 SCC 153] , has held that issue in relation to bonafide requirement of rented premises by landlord is essentially a question of fact and does not involve any substantial question of law.

¶25

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi Shaikh & Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 684] has observed that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing the second appeal finally, the court can re-frame the substantial question of law or can frame new substantial question of law or even can hold that the question of law as already framed do not fall within the purview of substantial question of law but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, without formation/involvement of substantial question of law. 11. The substantial questions of law already framed have been considered and answered in negative. No other substantial question of law is found involved in the second appeal.

¶26

Counsel for respondent-landlord submits that appellant has vacated the rented shop and handover the possession to respondent-defendant.

¶27

Counsel for appellant is not in a position to rebut the said factum of delivery of possession of said fact, however, do not dispute that decree for eviction has already been executed. 14. For discussion made hereinabove, considering the concurrent fact findings on the issue of bonafide and reasonable necessity, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, hence, the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CSA-730/2003]

¶30

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶31

Record of both Court below be sent back.

¶32

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶33

NITIN /94

Ravish Babu v. Dwarka Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravish Babu v. Dwarka Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Lal Agarwal Vs the Municipal Board

Ghanshyam Dani S/O Late Sh. Mohan Lal Vs Government of Rajasthan

Smt. Raj Kumari Vyas W/O Raj Kumar Vs Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bansidhar

Hariram and Ors. Vs Udairaj and Ors.

Gajraj Singh Vs Govind Singh and Anr.

Gajraj Singh Vs Givind Singh and Anr.