Dismissed

Nand Kishore S/O. Kanhaiya Lal v. Smt. Janki Devi W/O. Dhanna Lal

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2022CW/2432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by tenants challenging eviction decree. High Court dismissed petition, upholding Rent Tribunal findings as based on proper evidence and relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding landlord's right to premises and High Court's supervisory role.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal decrees upheld.

Nand Kishore S/O. Kanhaiya Lal Vs Smt. Janki Devi W/O… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2432/2021

¶3

Nand Kishore S/o. Kanhaiya Lal, (Deceased) Through Lr.s.

¶4

1/1. Ratan Bai W/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶5

1/2. Jyoti Prakash S/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶6

1/3. Jambu Kumar S/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶7

1/4. Bhupendra Kumar S/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶8

1/5. Mahendra Kumar S/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶9

1/6. Smt. Chandrakanta W/o. Budhi Prakash D/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶10

1/7. Rajni Gupta W/o. Mahaveer Prasad Gupta D/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶11

1/8. Chanchal Gupta W/o. Sanjay Gupta D/o. Late Nand Kishore, Resident Of 39-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶12

----Appellants-Non-Applicants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Smt. Janki Devi W/o. Dhanna Lal, Retired Teacher, Resident Of Mangrole, District Baran At Present Resident Of Ballabhbari, Gumanpura, Kota Through Lr.s. (Since Deceased)

¶15

1/1. Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o. Late Mohanlal Sharma, Resident Of 164, Ballabhbari, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶16

1/2. Satyajeet Sharma S/o. Late Mohan Lal Sharma, Resident Of 164, Ballabhbari, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.) (Since Deceased)

¶17

1/2/1. Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Late Shri Satyajeet Sharma, Resident Of 164, Ballabhbari, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶18

1/2/2. Neelansh Parashar S/o Late Shri Satyajeet Sharma,

¶19

(2 of 6)

¶20

[CW-2432/2021]

¶21

Resident Of 164, Ballabhbari, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶22

1/2/3. Pragya Parashar D/o Late Shri Satyajeet Sharma, Resident Of 164, Ballabhbari, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶23

----Applicants/Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Adhiraj, Adv.

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶26

Order

¶27

22/11/2022

¶28

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as tenants) challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2021 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota whereby the appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota whereby the decree of eviction was passed against the tenants.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (since deceased & represented through Lrs to be referred as landlords) filed an eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, Kota. During pendency of the eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, Kota the landlady died and her legal representatives/heirs were taken on record. In the first round of litigation, the Rent Tribunal passed the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2008 whereby the eviction application was dismissed, against which landlady filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Court and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Tribunal for reconsideration. The Rent Tribunal, Kota after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the material before it, allowed the eviction application and passed

¶30

(3 of 6)

¶31

[CW-2432/2021]

¶32

the judgment and decree of eviction dated 27.10.2016 against the tenants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota dated 27.10.2016, an appeal was preferred by the tenants and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota. Thus, being aggrieved by both the judgments and decrees passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota dated 27.10.2016 & 25.01.2021 respectively, the present writ petition has been filed the tenants.

¶33

Counsel for the tenants submitted that the Rent Tribunal, Kota as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota have wrongly decided issue NO .1 in favour of the landlords without there being any material on record. Counsel further submits that the disputed premises is not required by the landlords as they were having another house in Kota city, therefore the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on issue NO. 2-A is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Counsel further submits that the issues No.2, 3 & 3-A have wrongly been deleted by the Rent Tribunal, Kota vide order dated 15.05.2015 as the tenants have not given their consent for deleting these issues and they have also not signed the order sheets. Counsel further submits that in view of the Section 32 of the Rent Control Act, the second eviction application before the Rent Tribunal was not maintainable.

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the landlord is the best judge to decide the suitability of the premises. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the bona fide need of

¶35

(4 of 6)

¶36

[CW-2432/2021]

¶37

the landlord is a recurring cause for which he can again file the eviction application. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the tenants consented for deletion of issues No.2, 3 and 3-A, therefore they are now estopped to challenge the same after a delay of seven years as they failed to challenge the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota with regard to deletion of these issues.

¶38

In support of the contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi , reported in 2016 (10) Supreme Court Cases 209 in which in para 12 it has been held as under:-

¶39

“12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premises were lying vacant for running business of respondent's son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja² to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to which shop her son should start the business from.”

¶40

Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamshad Ahmad and others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others , reported in 2008 (9) Supreme Court Cases 1 in which in para 36, 37 & 38 it has been held as under:-

¶41

“36. A finding as to bona fide requirement for doing readymade garments business by Matloob Ahmad has been expressly recorded by the appellant authority. The said finding was a finding of fact. Neither could it have been interfered with, nor has it been set aside by the writ court. In view of the above position, the High Court was wrong in allowing the writ petition.”

¶42

(5 of 6)

¶43

[CW-2432/2021]

¶44

“37. As observed earlier, statutory remedy has been provided under the Act against an order passed by the prescribed authority by filing an appeal before the District Judge (Section 22). There is no further remedy under the Act. The tenant, in the circumstances, approached the High Court by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.”

¶45

“38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.”

¶46

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶47

This writ petition filed by the tenants deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the argument raised by the counsel for the tenants with regard to perversity of findings given by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal on issues No.1 & 2A is not acceptable as the same are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material which came on record, hence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Courts below; secondly, the another argument with regard to wrongful deletion of issues No. 2, 3 & 3-A by the Rent Tribunal is also not acceptable as the said issues were deleted vide order dated 15.05.2015 with the consent of the parties and the tenants have failed to challenge the said order; thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa & Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. (both supra), I am not inclined to

¶48

(6 of 6)

¶49

[CW-2432/2021]

¶50

exercise the powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶51

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶52

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶53

JYOTI /40

Nand Kishore S/O. Kanhaiya Lal v. Smt. Janki Devi W/O. Dhanna Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore S/O. Kanhaiya Lal v. Smt. Janki Devi W/O. Dhanna Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Choti Devi W/O Shri Ramraj Meena Vs Gulbai Meena W/O Shri Prahalad Meena

Mr. Rameshwar Jaswal (Co-Borrower) Vs Reserve Bank of India

Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Yadav S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt Nahid Mirja, Wife of Shri Mirja Maksood Bag Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishwari Singh S/O Makkhan Vs State of Rajasthan