Ganj, Ajmer (Raj) v. Khailand Market, Ajmer

Basur through his legal representative Smt. Mahindra Kaur (Deceased) W/o Late Sardar Balbir Singh, R/o 9/359, Chataiganj, Opp. Anand Bhawan, Ganj Ajmer. 1/1. Harpreet Singh Basur S/o Late Sardar Balbir Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 9/359, Chataiganj, Opp. Anand Bhawan, Ganj, Ajmer (Raj). ----Petitioner

1. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer. Versus

2. Ajeet Jain S/o Indra Chand Jain, (Tenant Of Shop No. 13 And 54) Proprietor Arihant Enterprises Shop No. 13 And 54, Khailand Market, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19852/2013 Sardar Balbir Singh (Deceased) S/o Late Sardar Balwant Singh Basur through his legal representative Smt. Mahindra Kaur (Deceased) W/o Late Sardar Balbir Singh, R/o 9/359, Chataiganj, Opp. Anand Bhawan, Ganj Ajmer. (2 of 8) [CW-19853/2013] 1/1. Harpreet Singh Basur S/o Late Sardar Balbir Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 9/359, Chataiganj, Opp. Anand Bhawan, Ganj, Ajmer (Raj). ----Petitioner

1. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer. Versus

2. Vijayraj Parashar S/o Ramdev, (Tenant Of Shop No. 12) Proprietor Of M/s Jodhpur Tractors, Shop No. 12, Khailand Market, Prithviraj Marg, Ajmer (Raj.). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Hora with Mr. Amulya Jemini : Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. Luxmi Kant JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/08/2025

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all these three petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, matters are taken up for final disposal and are being decided by this common order.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19853/2013 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19850/2013 have been submitted against the respondent-tenant Ajit Jain against the orders passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal by which the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal have been quashed and set-aside and the eviction application submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) has been rejected on the ground of bonafide need and default in payment of arrears of rent. (3 of 8) [CW-19853/2013]

3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19852/2013 has been submitted by the petitioner against the respondent-tenant against the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by which the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal has been quashed and set-aside and the application submitted by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 for his eviction on the ground of bonafide need has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question, i.e., Shop Nos.12, 13 & 54 are adjacent shops and these shops were required by the petitioner for the personal bonafide necessity of his son Harpreet Singh and after his retirement they wanted to run a business of motor parts and for running the said business, the subject premises were required.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the bonafide need, the tenant Ajit Jain had failed to make payment of due arrears of rent, hence separate rent eviction application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted against him for his eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. Learned counsel submits that in all the matters, the rent eviction application submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal against which appeal was preferred by the respondent-tenant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and all appeals submitted by them were allowed and orders passed by the Rent Tribunal were quashed and set-aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bonafide need was established on the record by the original landlord, i.e., (4 of 8) [CW-19853/2013] Sardar Balbir Singh by examining himself in the witness box and this fact was appreciated by the Tribunal while accepting the application submitted by the petitioner and accordingly, the order of eviction was passed against the respondent-tenant. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court has reversed the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal on a technical count that since during pendency of the rent eviction application, the original landlord expired, the bona fide need of the landlord has come to an end and since his son Harpreet Singh was not examined in the witness box, the bona fide need of the son was not established on the record. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehmooda Gulshan Vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo reported in 2017 (5) SCC 683 and C. Karunakaran (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. T. Meenakshi reported in 2005 (13) SCC 99. Learned counsel submits that mere non-examination of the person for whose need the premises is required by itself could not be a ground to non- suit the landlord. Counsel submits that if the bona fide need is established on the basis of the evidence of the landlord, it is not necessary that the son, for whose necessity the suit has been filed, is required to be examined in the witness box. Learned counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the Rent Tribunal are not tenable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set-aside. (5 of 8) [CW-19853/2013]

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the landlord-petitioner has miserably failed to prove on the record that there was any default in payment of arrears of the rent on the part of the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the rent of the subject premises was Rs.200/- per month and there was no evidence on the record that the rent was Rs.1125/- per month. Counsel submits that in the year 1984, a suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent wherein this fact was admitted and established by none other than the petitioner himself that the rent of the subject premises was Rs.200/- per month. Learned counsel submits that all these facts were appreciated by the Appellate Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the Rent Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner was not in a bona fide need of the subject premises rather it was desire of the landlord to get the premises vacated as he wanted to sell the premises. Counsel submits that the bona fide need of the landlord as well as his son was mentioned in the rent eviction application submitted against the respondents for the purpose of the petitioner’s son to run his business after the petitioner’s retirement. However, the son of the petitioner graduated in Engineering in the year 1995 and he was doing his business at Udaipur and he was also operating his business in Ajmer from Udaipur. Learned counsel further submits that the landlord retired way-back in the year 1977 and the rent eviction application was submitted in the year 2003 and thereafter the (6 of 8) [CW-19853/2013] petitioner-Sardar Balbir Singh expired on 10.08.2006. Learned counsel submits that though there was no bona fide need of the landlord, but still the same came at the end immediately after his death. Learned counsel submits that there are contradictions in the statements of the landlord with regard to dependency of his son upon him. Learned counsel submits that the son is running his own business from Udaipur and submitting the Income Tax Return and he himself has not been examined in the witness box before the Tribunal and all these facts were appreciated by the Appellate Rent Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that a cogent and reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which requires no interference of this Court, hence, this writ petition is liable to be rejected.

9. After arguing at length, the counsel for the respondents, on instructions from their respective clients, have expressed their desire to vacate the premises, in case some reasonable time is provided by this Court.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection in case a period of one and half years time is granted to the respondents to vacate the subject premises but meanwhile, the rent be increased and enhanced as mesne profit.

11. Considering the alternative submissions of the counsel for the respondents, this Court is not required to decide the petitions on its merits and the same are decided in the light of the desire (7 of 8) [CW-19853/2013] expectation by the respondents to vacate the premises in questions

12. Considering the above submissions made by counsel for the respective parties, these writ petitions stand disposed of in the following terms:-

1. The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal stands quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Rent Tribunal stands restored and upheld and the eviction application submitted by the petitioner against the respondents stands allowed. 2. The respondents shall be entitled to continue in possession of the subject premises till 25.02.2027 but not beyond that, subject to condition that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premises to the petitioner on or before 25.02.2027. 3. The respondents-Ajeet Jain and Vijayraj Parashar shall deposit the arrears of rent, due if any, up to 06.11.2025 and shall continue to deposit the monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively with the Bank account of the petitioner by 15th of each successive month. 4. The respondents shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right or hand over the possession of the rented premises in question to anyone. 5. In case, the respondents fail to deposit the rent consecutively for a period of four months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Rent Tribunal without further reference to the Court.

13. Further the respondents shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the Rent Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. In case, the respondents fail to submit the undertaking as aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today and / or commits breach of any of the conditions of this order, the petitioner shall be entitled to execute (8 of 8) [CW-19853/2013] the order passed by the Rent Tribunal forthwith and shall obtain the possession of the rented premises in accordance with law. 14 The stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Ashu/29-31 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J