Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
SHANTI DEVI & ANOTHER V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, RENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BHILWARA & OTHERS , decided on Thursday, December 3, 2015.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petition No. 8807 of 2015. ] 03/12/2015
Judge(s) : SANGEET LODHA
Advocate(s) : P.D. Bohra. R2, Sandeep Saruparia.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2016 (1) WLN 316"  ==   " 2015 (64) RCR(Civil) 870"  ==   ""  







    1. This petition is directed against order dated 13.4.15 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal Bhilwara whereby an appeal preferred by the second respondent against the order dated 31.8.12 passed by the Rent Tribunal Bhilwara in Rent Case No.104/07 dismissing the petition for eviction preferred by the second respondent has been allowed and accordingly the petitioner is directed to be evicted from a commercial premises.2. The second respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises a shop on the ground that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation and it being useful for commercial use there is reasonable and bona fide requirement thereof for reconstruction of a commercial building. That apart the eviction was also sought on the ground of sub-letting. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto.3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the RentTribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record the Rent Tribunal found that any of the grounds set out in the petition for eviction of the petitioner is not proved and accordingly dismissed the petition vide order dated 31.8.12. Aggrieved thereby an appeal preferred by the second respondent before the Appellate Rent Tribunal has been allowed and the petitioner is directed to be evicted from the premises in question. Hence this petition.4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding issues No.1 and 3 regarding reasonable and bona fide necessity and the premises having become unsafe for human habitation respectively against the petitioner and in favour of the second respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has arrived at a categorical finding that it is not proved that the premises in question has become unsafe for human habitation and thus the finding arrived at in terms that it deserves to be demolished for its beneficial commercial use is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded by the second respondent stands proved.5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due appreciation of the evidence on record has arrived at a categorical finding that the building wherein the disputed premises is situated is in dilapidated condition and deserves to be demolished and reconstructed for beneficial commercial use. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is a finding of fact which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court.6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.7. Indisputably it had come on record that the premises in question is about 60-70 years old and presently it is in dilapidated condition. In this regard the photographs of the building placed on record are self explanatory. If the premises is in dilapidated condition and needs to be demolished and reconstructed for better commercial use the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal holding that the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises as pleaded by the second respondent stands proved cannot be faulted with. In the considered opinion of this Court in terms of provisions of Section 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 the comparative hardship of the parties cannot be gone into and thus the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal remains a finding of fact which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.8. In the result the petition fails. It is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed.