w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Denzil Najrath v/s LR's of Balwant Singh & Others

    Civil First Appeal No. 371 of 2011

    Decided On, 11 August 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

    For the Appellant: S.L. Jain, Advocate. For the Respondents: J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate with N.R. Budania, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellantdefendant (Tenant)- Denzil Najrath, Principal of Sacred Heart School, Ward No.11, Sri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar against the decree of eviction dated 31.05.2011 passed by learned trial court in suit No.2/2001 (Balwant Singh through LR's & Ors. v. Denzil Najrath) on the ground of default in payment of rent of Rs.1,08,000/-, and bonafide necessity of the landlord. The learned trial court has decreed the suit under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') and on payment of arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/-, the benefit of first default was given in terms of Section 13 (6) of the Act of 1950.

2. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellantS. defendant submitted that the findings of the learned trial court

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

are perverse and since admittedly the sons of plaintiff- Balwant Singh, namely, Swarn Singh and Nirmal Singh were living separately after their marriage since 1997, therefore, there was no question of any bonafide need of the landlord for the three families to live together; and even though in the evidence recorded by the learned trial court of only one of the plaintiff's son, namely, Swarn Singh, who however, has not reiterated any such bonafide need even then the he learned trial court has decreed the suit for eviction, which decree deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that the suit premises comprising of 8 rooms and a compound, measuring 72 Ft. x 152 Ft. was given on rent to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.750/-, was purchased by the plaintiff only on 25.02.2000 and 16.05.2000 by three separate sale deeds from the original owner, namely, Sh. Krishan Chandra Paliwal and since the sons of plaintiff- Balwant Singh were already living separately since 1997, therefore, at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2001, there was no bonafide need of the suit premises. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial court in this regard are perverse and substantial question of law arises in the matter and this appeal deserves to be admitted.

3. On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania, learned counsel for the respondents plaintiffs vehemently submitted that the suit premises was admittedly given to the defendant-tenant way-back in the year 1984 and thereafter twice the rent was increased on his demand for further improvement and renovation in the suit premises, which the plaintiff landlord carried out and in the end of year 2000, the rent of Rs.3000/- per month was agreed to be paid. However, since the defendant stopped to pay the rent, therefore, the plaintiff had to file said suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent. Further, drawing the attention of the Court towards the affidavit filed by Swarn Singh, he submitted that in paras 7 and 8 of the said affidavit, the said witness has clearly stated that House No.79, situated in Ward No.19 in Sri Karanpur was very small for family of both the married brothers and father to live together, and therefore, they needed the suit premises situated in Ward No.11, which comprised of 8 rooms and for the family of deponent Swaran Singh with five members and three members in the family of other brother, namely, Nirmal Singh alongwith their parents and even the sister's son, namely, Gurvinder Singh who was assisting them in their business and was living with them, the said premise was very small, therefore, they needed the suit premises. He also submitted that besides their brother's family, there were three sisters who were married but were regularly coming their house for meeting their parents and, therefore, the premises already available was very short of the requirement; and as far as the other plots of land were concerned, the same were already sold to other parties on 23.08.2002. Thus, no alternative accommodation was also available to the plaintiffs' family. He, therefore, submitted that bonafide need was fully established before the learned trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, Mr. J.L. Purohit further submitted that the defendant-tenant originally claimed that his tenancy was with Sh. Krishan Chandra Paliwal, from whom the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to purchase the said suit premises in the year 1978 itself and had paid advance Rs.3,36,000/-, and since the sale deed could not be executed before the death of Sh. Krishan Chandra Paliwal, his wife executed sale deed in the year 2000 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's family had no bonafide need since both the brothers after their marriage had to live separately in different premises situated in House No.79 in Ward No.19. He further submitted that findings of fact about the bonafide need are correct and no perversity can be attributed to them and no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and no interference is called for in the eviction decree.

5. He relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 580 in support of his contention that in view of denial of the title of plaintiff by the defendant, it was a ground for eviction of the defendant. Further reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Palani Ammal v. Viswanatha Chettiar (Dead) & Ors., reported in 1998 DNJ (SC) 164, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff No.3, who purchased the land from original lessor, the real owner was entitled to eviction of defendant and the defendant-tenant could not claim protection under the Rent Control Act. In the case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 679, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or business purposes and has complete freedom in the matter. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has wrongly allowed the second appeal of the tenant by incorrectly assuming that the landlord had admitted that there were a number of alternative properties in his possession.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that findings of fact about the bonafide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant tenant. The owner-plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in para 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaintiff's family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and, therefore, they needed the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross-examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and, therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross-examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bonafide need of the landlord are findings of fact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate court; and even though this is first appeal as the trial court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Section 100 CPC, still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no merit.

7. Consequently, the present first appeal being devoid of merit fails and the same is hereby dismissed and the decree of eviction is upheld. No order as to costs. The appellant-defendant shall hand-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to plaintiffs-respondents within a period of six months from today and shall pay mesne profit of Rs.5000/- per month commencing from August 2011. He shall not sublet, assign or put in possession any other person. If the defendant-appellant fails to satisfy this decree within six months as aforesaid, the plaintiffs respondents besides seeking execution of the decree in regular course, shall also be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

Appeal dismissed.
O R