Dismissed

Mushtaq Son of Late Shri Yusuf v. Shabbu Ahmed Son of Shri Shabbir

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2022CW/4853/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a tenant's appeal against an eviction order. The Court held that findings of bona fide need for eviction based on family necessity were factual findings not liable to be disputed by the writ court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; all pending applications are disposed of.

Mushtaq Son of Late Shri Yusuf Vs Shabbu Ahmed Son of… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4853/2022

¶3

Mushtaq Son Of Late Shri Yusuf, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of In Front Of House No. 353/49, Kundannagar, Paahadi Area, Ajmer.

¶4

----Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shabbu Ahmed Son Of Shri Shabbir, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of House No. 353/49, Kundannagar, Pahadi Area, Ajmer.

¶7

----Plaintiff/Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Gaharana For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶10

Order

¶11

28/11/2022

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the appeal filed by the petitionertenant against the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal was dismissed.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer on the ground of bonafide need and personal necessity. The Rent Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord vide order dated 26.09.2019.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CW-4853/2022]

¶16

The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner-tenant and the same was dismissed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer vide order dated 30.09.2021.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed serious illegality in deciding the issue No.2 in favour of the respondent-landlord.

¶18

Counsel further submits that the petitioner-tenant has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶19

Heard counsel for the petitioner-tenant and perused the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi , reported in 2016 (10) Supreme Court Cases 209 in para 12 helds as under:-

¶20

“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.”

¶21

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 para 36, 37 & 38 helds as under:-

¶22

“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.”

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-4853/2022]

¶25

“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.”

¶26

“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.”

¶27

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below in favour of the respondentlandlord with regard to bonafide need and personal necessity of the disputed premises for the family of the landlord, however in my considered view, the said finding of fact is based on evidence and therefore the same is not liable to be disputed by this Court; secondly, this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal to reappreciate the evidence recorded by the Courts below while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and lastly, in view of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhupinder Singh Bawa and Shamshad Ahmad (both supra) , I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CW-4853/2022]

¶30

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶31

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶32

AARZOO ARORA /54

Mushtaq Son of Late Shri Yusuf v. Shabbu Ahmed Son of Shri Shabbir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mushtaq Son of Late Shri Yusuf v. Shabbu Ahmed Son of Shri Shabbir

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

Sawhney Electricles Works Vs Rajasthan Housing Board

Ishika Bhashani W/O Shri Johnny Bhashani Vs Sumedilal Jain S/O Laxmichand Jain

Deep Chand Bansal S/O Late Shri Tara Chand Ji Agarwal Vs Jugal Kishore Sharma S/O Shri Vishnu Prasad Sharma

Ramakant Sharma S/O Shri Maliram Sharma Vs Additional Food Commissioner

Kailash Narayan Pareek, S/O Late Suraj Narayan Pareek Vs Virendra Kumar Jain, S/O Shree Radhelal Jain

Kamlesh Kumar Manubhai Ramoliya Vs Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor