Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Karnavat &Ors; vs Rajendra &Ors; on 5 October, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
1. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5855/2016)
1.Rajendra Karnawat S/o Shri Sardar Singh karnavat, C/o Karnavat
Commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
2. Surendra Karnavat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Karnavat, C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
3. Narendra Karnavat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Karnavat, C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
4. Sardar Singh Karnavat S/o Shri Gopal Singh Karnavat C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
5. M/s Karnavat Commercial through partner Smt. Pushpa N. Karnavat, C/o
M/s. karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and 24, Kitaab
Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajendra S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia, R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji
ka Rasta, Jaipur.
2. Raja S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji ka
Rasta, Jaipur.
3. Rishabh S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji
ka Rasta, Jaipur.
...Respondents
2. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5857/2016)
1.Rajendra Karnawat S/o Shri Sardar Singh karnavat, C/o Karnavat
Commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
2. Surendra Karnavat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Karnavat, C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
3. Narendra Karnavat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Karnavat, C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
2
4. Sardar Singh Karnavat S/o Shri Gopal Singh Karnavat C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
5. M/s Karnavat Commercial through partner Smt. Pushpa N. Karnavat, C/o
M/s. karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and 24, Kitaab
Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajendra S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia, R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji
ka Rasta, Jaipur.
2. Raja S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji ka
Rasta, Jaipur.
3. Rishabh S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji
ka Rasta, Jaipur.
...Respondents
4. M/s. Global Sports Wear brand adidas Brand through Manager, Ratan
Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
...Performa Respondents
3. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5856/2016)
1.Rajendra Karnawat S/o Shri Sardar Singh karnavat, C/o Karnavat
Commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
2. Surendra Karnavat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Karnavat, C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
3. Narendra Karnavat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Karnavat, C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
4. Sardar Singh Karnavat S/o Shri Gopal Singh Karnavat C/o Karnavat
commercial Private Limited, R/o 9A, Takht-e-Shahi Road, Jaipur having place
of business at karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and
24, Kitaab Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
5. M/s Karnavat Commercial through partner Smt. Pushpa N. Karnavat, C/o
M/s. karnavat Commercials, Ratan Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur and 24, Kitaab
Mahal, 192, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra).
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajendra S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia, R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji
ka Rasta, Jaipur.
2. Raja S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji ka
Rasta, Jaipur.
3. Rishabh S/o Late Shri Manmal Phophalia R/o House No. 538, Hanuman Ji
ka Rasta, Jaipur.
...Respondents
3
Date of Order: October 5th, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. S.S. Hora ] for the petitioners.
Mr. Dharmendra Gurjar]
Mr. Giriraj Bardhar] for respondents.
Mr. Kapil Bardhar ]
BY THE COURT:
Three eviction petitions were filed by the respondent- landlords (hereinafter `the landlords') against the petitioners-tenants (hereinafter `the tenants'). SBCWP No.5855/2016 arises from the judgment dated 18-1-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan City (hereinafter `the Tribunal') in eviction petition No.333/2008, as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan city (hereinafter `the Appellate Tribunal') vide judgment dated 27-2-2016. Thereunder the landlords' eviction petition on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity was allowed.
SBCWP No.5857/2016 arises from the judgment dated 18-1- 2014 passed by the Tribunal in Eviction Petition No.237/2009, as affirmed vide judgment dated 27-2-2016 passed by the Appellate 4 Tribunal whereby the landlord's eviction petition on the ground of subletting of tenanted premises was allowed.
SBCWP No.5856/2016 arises from the judgment dated 18-1- 2014 passed by the Tribunal in eviction petition No.334/2008, as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 27-2-2016 holding that the tenants were liable to be evicted on the ground of their carrying out material alteration without the landlord's written permission.
At the outset during the course of hearing on a query Counsel for the tenants Mr. S.S. Hora fairly admitted that in the event of any of the writ petition being dismissed, the consequence would be the affirmation of tenant's eviction by the Rent Tribunal, no matter what the outcome in the other two petitions.
SBCWP No.5855/2016 is taken as a lead case and its facts are being adverted to.
By a registered lease deed executed on 14-7-1994 a showroom measuring 770 sq. ft. situate at Ratan Bhawan Building, M.I. Road Jaipur was rented out to one Smt. Kamla S. Karnawat (now deceased and represented through her Legal Representative) by one Manmal Phopalia (now also deceased and represented through his 5 LRs) for a period of five years on a rent of Rs.1250/- per month. House tax, electricity and water charges were to be paid extra at actuals in addition to the agreed rent by the tenant. Clause 13 of the lease deed allowed for four options of renewal each for 5 (five years) exercisable by the lessee's notice to the lessor three months prior to the expiry of the lease/ renewed lease period.
The landlords filed an eviction petition No.333/2006 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the Act of 2001') on 2-9-2003 seeking the tenant's eviction and possession of the tenant premises on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity. It was stated that the tenanted premises were required for the purpose of business of Rajendra and Raja, who wanted to open a showroom for selling handicrafts, brassware, silver jewellery and other related items. It was further stated that the tenants had purchased an adjoining property from Ummed Mal and also had properties in their ownership and possession at G-300 and G-301 in Sitapura Industrial area Jaipur and hence were also liable to be evicted on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation adequate for their requirement.
In a reply of denial, the defence set up by the tenants was that during the life time of the erstwhile landlord Man Mal Phopaliya, 6 the currency of the lease deed dated 14-7-1994 had been extended from 14-7-1999 to 13-7-2004 in terms of clause 13 thereof, the rent had also been enhanced effective July, 1999 to Rs.1500/- per month and was being paid/ tendered to the landlord when due. It was stated that as the lease deed stood renewed upto 13-7-2004 on notice of renewal having been given on 5-4-1999, consequently the eviction petition filed prior thereto on 2-9-2003 (on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity) was itself not maintainable and hence be dismissed. It was stated that the adjoining premises purportedly purchased by the tenant had in fact been bought by M/s. Comet Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that the landlord has wrongly confined the tenancy to Kamla S Karnawat, the defendant No.1 in the eviction petition and for this reason resort had been taken by the tenants following her death, to Section 19(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter `the Act of 1950') whereunder rent due was being deposited in the civil court. The availability of alternative accommodation suitable to the requirement of the tenants as LRs of Kamla S Karnawat was denied. It was stated that in any event the landlord has accepted the rent from the tenants subsequent to 13-7- 1999, and by this fact alone the landlord tenant relationship obtained between the parties on a lease deed deemed to have been renewed following notice therefor.
7
The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the contesting parties framed the following issues:-
¼1½ vk;k vthZnkjx.kksa dks vthZ ds iSjk ua-&3 esa of.kZr lEifRr ftls vthZ ds lkFk uD"ks esa ihys jax ls ,] ch] lh] Mh] bZ ekdZ ls lEifRr iznf"kZr dh xbZ gS] ftldk fooj.k yht MhM fnukad 14-07-1994 esa fn;k x;k gS] jktsUæ ,oa jktk ds O;kikj ds miHkksx o vf/kHkksx ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr :i ls vkSj ln~Hkkfod vko";drk gS\ ¼2½ vk;k izR;FkhZx.k la-&1 o 2 us vius O;olk; ds fy;s fdjk;s"kqnk ifjlj ds cjkcj ifjlj Ø; dj fy;k ,oa izR;FkhZx.kksa us vius ifjokjtu ds uke ls lEifRr Ø; dj yh ,oa izR;FkhZ la-&1 o 2 ds Hkkxhnkjksa dks O;kikfjd ifjlj t;iqj "kgj esa vU;= miyC/k gks x;k gS ,oa mDr ifjlj esa O;kikj dj jgs gSa\ ¼3½ vk;k izR;FkhZx.k us vthZnkjx.k ds LokfeRo ds ckjs esa vk{ksi dj LokfeRo ls budkj fd;k] ftl dkj.k fdjk;snkjksa dks csn[ky djkus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ,oa Hkw&Lokeh us vius vf/kdkj dk vf/kR;tu ugha fd;k gS ;k fdjk;snkj ds vkpj.k dks ekQ ugha fd;k\ ¼4½ vk;k vthZnkj dks U;k;ky; eqaflQ iwoZ] t;iqj "kgj }kjk okn izR;kàr djrs le; u;k okn izLrqr djus dh Lora=rk ugha nh xbZ\ ¼5½ vk;k yht MhM dks ekuey QksQfy;k ds thoudky esa fnukad 14-07-1999 ls 13-07-2004 rd c<+k nh xbZ] ftl dkj.k yht MhM ds izpfyr le; dky ds vUrxZr ugha gksus ls le; iwoZ ¼izhesP;ksj½ gS\ ¼6½ vk;k iwoZ nkos ds leLr izfrokfn;ksa dks orZeku vthZ esa i{kdkj ugha cukus ls dqla;kstu dk nks'k gS] ftldk vthZ ij D;k vlj gS\ ¼7½ vuqrks'k\ For the landlord Rajendra (Pw.1), Raja (Pw.2) and Prasanna Patel (Pw.3) were examined and five documents were exhibited. The tenants in defence examined Kamla S. Karnawat (Dw.1), Puspa N 8 Karnawat (Dw.2) Mukesh Jain (Dw.3) Bhagwat Kochar (Dw.4) and exhibited 12 documents.
On consideration of evidence, the Tribunal found that the landlords had been able to make out a case of bonafide and reasonable necessity. It further held that from the evidence on record it was also established that the tenants had acquired alternative accommodation adjoining the tenanted shop adequate to their requirement albeit in the name of M/s. Commit Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. but to their benefit. The objection as to the maintainability of the eviction petition for purportedly being filed prematurely was negated. The Tribunal further found that the lease deed executed and registered in the first instance on 14-7-1994 for a period of five years had not been renewed both for the reason that proof of notice to the landlord/s for such extension was not established to its satisfaction and also, more importantly, for the reason no renewed lease deed had ever been came to be executed and registered. So holding on various issues aforesaid, the Tribunal directed the eviction of the tenants and issued a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord. On appeal, the Appellate Rent Tribunal found no perversity or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal to warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this petition. 9
Mr. S.S. Hora, counsel for the tenant submitted that in terms of clause 13 of the lease deed dated 14-7-1994 the tenants were entitled to four extensions of five years each. He submitted that in terms of the aforesaid clause no sooner the tenants gave notice to the landlord to renew the lease three months prior to expiry of the lease period, the lease was to be deemed to have been automatically renewed for a further five years alongside the tenants' obligation to pay rent with a 20% increase over the previous rent. Mr. S.S. Hora submitted that on a true interpretation of clause 13 of the lease deed dated 14-7-1994 a notice to renew the lease deed entailed automatic renewal without anything more, such as necessity of executing and registering the renewed lease deed. Mr. S.S. Hora in this context submitted that the option to extend the lease deed dated 14-7-1994 under clause 13 was exercised by the tenants vide letter dated 5-4-1999, which was duly received by the landlord Man Mal Phopaliya on 14-7-1999. Resultantly the lease was renewed till 13- 7-2004 and the eviction petition laid on 2-9-2003 under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was quite evidently premature, not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed as such by the Rent Tribunal. Mr. S.S. Hora submitted that albeit issue No.5 was framed regarding the maintainability of the eviction petition, the Tribunal misdirected itself completely in holding that there was no renewal of the lease deed upto 13-7-2004. Reliance was placed by Mr. S.S. Hora on the 10 judgment in Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar Vs. Rudravva [(2001)7 SCC 409] as also on the judgment in the case of Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. A.H. Forbes [1912 Indian Cases Vol.XVII 180] wherein Calcutta High Court held that in situations of registered lease deed containing a renewal clause, with the lessee willing to renew, his right of renewal in equity would be the same as if a proper and formal renewal of the lease deed had been granted by execution and registration.
Mr. S.S. Hora further submitted in the alternative that even if the eviction petition was to be held maintainable, from the evidence before the Tribunal its findings as to the landlord's bonafide and reasonable necessity of Rajendra and Raja for the tenanted shop was wholly perverse inasmuch as there was no evidence of probative worth before the Tribunal that they had any experience of doing the business of handicraft, brassware, silver jewellery and/ or had requisite funds therefor.
Per contra, Mr. Giriraj Bardhar appearing for the landlords submitted that albeit clause 13 of the lease deed dated 13-7-1994 did provide for the lessee's option four renewals of the lease deed each for a period of five years, yet there was no renewal subsequent to 13-7-1999. It was submitted that aside of the fact that the 11 Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal had found that no notice dated 5-4-1999 to renew the lease three months prior to expiry of lease deed on 13-7-1999 or at all had been served on the erstwhile landlord, on the failure of the landlord to have executed and registered the renewed lease deed the remedy available to the tenants was to file a suit for specific performance for execution and registration of renewed lease deed. No such proceeding was admittedly taken. Nor admittedly was the lease deed renewed and registered. Resultantly the rights of tenant under lease deed dated 14-7-1994 came to an end on 13-7-1999. Thereafter they were merely tenants holding over month to month against whom the landlords were free to initiate eviction proceedings on any of the grounds set out under the Act of 2001. The eviction petition was thereupon filed on 2-9-2003 on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Giriraj Bardhar on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Devi Vs. Shankar Mahto [(2005)5 SCC 543] wherein it was held that even where a lease deed provided for renewal, there could be no implied renewal of lease deed by holding over or by mere acceptance of rent by the lessor from the lessee. Mr. Giriraj Bardhar then submitted that from the evidence of Rajendra (Pw.1) and Raja (Pw.2) the Tribunal has rightly held that they required the tenanted shop for the purpose of their business of handicraft, brassware, 12 silver jewellery and a showroom therefor. The landlords' evidence remained unshaken in their cross examination. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the landlords had any other shop from where they could carry out their intended business. Mr. Giriraj Bardhar submitted that it is well settled that findings of the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal on a question of fact such as of bonafide and reasonable necessity are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of High Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless perverse and patently illegal. It was submitted that none of the aforesaid grounds or any other are made out for interference by this court with the impugned judgments passed by the Tribunals rendering a concurrent finding. Mr. Giriraj Bardhar further submitted that admittedly the tenants have purchased the property adjoining the tenanted shop measuring approximately 770 sq. ft. from Ummed Mal Phopaliya. The defence set up by them of the property having been purchased by M/s. Commit Portfolio to their exclusion was found of little credible worth and has been disbelieved by the Tribunals.
Mr. Giriraj Bardhar then pointed out that since the filing of eviction petition about fourteen years have lapsed and despite two judgments of the Rent and Appellate Rent Tribunal against the tenants they continue to be in occupation, use and enjoyment of the 13 tenanted premises. Therefore the tenants are liable to be forthwith evicted and the petition filed by them dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
The contention of Mr. S.S. Hora that the eviction petition laid on 2-9-2003 was not maintainable for reason of being premature having been filed during the currency of automatically renewed lease deed dated 14-7-1994 upto 13-7-2004 is wholly without force. It is well settled that the right to renewal of a lease or even exercise of option therefor by itself is of no consequence unless such a renewal of lease is executed and registered. A renewed lease deed is in the nature of a fresh lease deed and all legal incidents applicable to a lease deed first executed attract to such a lease. Besides in the instant case the purported exercise of option for renewal of lease deed by the tenants under notice dated 5-4-1999 has been concurrently disbelieved by the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. And it is not in dispute that in any event the renewed lease deed for a period of five years following the expiry of initial 5 years under lease deed dated 14-7-1994 (on 13-7-1999) was not executed in favour of the tenant. The Apex Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Devi (supra) has held that the concept of automatic renewal of lease deed is not known to law even where a right to 14 renewal obtained and had been exercised. For a renewal of lease deed to be effective a renewed lease deed in terms of the renewal clause is required to be executed and registered. This legal position has been more specifically stated by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Tama Chandrashekhar Vaidya [(2014)1 SCC 657], para 10 thereof reads thus:-
"Now, let us examine what would be the position in the absence of a fresh deed being executed and registered between the parties. There are only two possibilities: one, that the renewal notice was in exercise of the renewal clause in the lease deed. If that be so, the execution and registration of a fresh deed of lease was essential for the renewal of lease to take place." (emphasis mine) Non renewal of lease deed despite party's request only entails a right to file a suit for specific performance based on the agreement for renewal of lease between the parties. In the instant case, no such suit was filed by the tenant.
I am of the considered view that the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the tenants are of no avail. They did not address the issue before this court. In Laxmandas Bapudas Darbar Vs. Rudravva (supra) the Apex Court held that in the period of a subsisting contractual lease for a fixed term it could be not be curtailed in the 15 absence of a forfeiture clause in the lease. But the facts of the case at hand show, as detailed above that when the eviction petition was filed on 2-9-2003 the tenant was not protected by a fixed term contractual lease, the earlier contractual lease having expired on 13-7-1999. The enunciation in Laxmandas Bapudas Darbar Vs. Rudravva (supra) is thus of no relevance to the fact situation in the case at hand and the issue/s which arise thereunder. The case of Secretary of State of India in Council (supra) decided by the Calcutta High Court also dealt with a factual scenario wholly distinct from the one under consideration. In that case the lease deed was in respect of open land for a period of 99 years with the right to the lessee to make with the lessor's sanction permanent construction thereon. The Collector--(the lessor), was empowered to resettle the lessee over the demised land subsequent to the expiry of the initial lease period on fair rent. In the aforesaid context the lessee to whom the lease came to be assigned in accordance with law claimed a permanent interest in the demised land which could not be circumvented and/ or denied by the failure of the lessor (Collector) to resettle/ renew the lessee/ lease on fair rent and instead seek his eviction. At the time when the Collector refused to resettle the lessee in possession and instead sought his eviction, on a challenge by the lessee, the Calcutta High Court held that it was the obligation of the Collector to resettle the lessee/ renew the lease deed on fair rent and 16 he could not seek lessee's eviction over leased land over which the lessee had come to acquire a permanent right. The Calcutta High Court held that the lease before it on proper construction of its terms entailed a permanent right having been acquired by the lessee. It was in this context that it was held that equity would operate in favour of the lessee and where the lessee was willing for the lease renewed on payment of fair rent but was yet arbitrarily denied by the lessor (Collector) his right in equity would be at par with the formal renewal of the lease deed. The present case on facts is wholly distinct. It does not relate to open land or a lease period of 99 years with right to make permanent construction with the lessor's sanction. The option to seek renewal of the lease deed is not in form of an obligation to renew on fair rent at the lessor's instance. Besides the judgment in the case of Secretary of State of India in Council (supra) even if construed as sought by Mr. S.S. Hora it can have no precedential worth in view of the specific judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) holding that the execution and registration of a renewed deed of lease was essential for the renewal of lease. That a right to renewal of a lease deed obtains under the initial lease deed is of no avail until a renewed lease deed akin to a fresh lease deed is executed and registered.17
I am of the considered view that in view of the legal position as obtaining, it cannot be held that without execution and registration of the renewed lease deed after 13-7-1999--when the initial period of lease expired, the tenants held an enforceable right thereunder. Consequently there was no legal prohibition against the landlords from seeking eviction of the tenants in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 2001 when the petition was laid on 2-9-2003.
On merits of the matter, from the evidence of Rajendra (Pw.1) and Raja (Pw.2) it was clearly established that they required the tenanted premises for their bonafide and reasonable necessity of starting a showroom for their business of handicraft, brassware, silver jewellery and other related items. Their evidence remained unshaken in cross examination. The mere fact that they did not have experience of the business they intended to commence was of little consequence. Running of a showroom does not require any expertise as a pre condition. Besides it is well settled that the landlord is best judge of the manner of earning his livelihood and the premises where from he fancies himself to be able to do so. No perversity or patent illegality can be attributed to findings of the Tribunal as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal on this score. SBCWP No.5855/2016 challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal on the landlord making out a 18 bonafide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted premises is thus without any force and without any legal foundation.
I am also of the considered view that from the appreciation of evidence on record the Tribunal has rightly held that the tenants had purchased the property adjoining the tenanted premises from Ummed Mal, albeit in the name of M/s. Commit Portfolio. That alternative accommodation was adequate and suitable to their requirement. The finding of the Tribunal on the above aspect is based on appreciation of evidence. Such finding cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its superintending powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as if an appellate court or even as if a revising court. SBCWP No.5855/2016 is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of SBCWP No.5855/2016, I am of the considered view that it would be an exercise in redundancy to address in detail the other two petitions filed by the tenants. One, SBCWP No.5857/2016 whereby the tenants' eviction has been directed on the ground of subletting of the tenanted premises without the permission of the landlords on a finding that the two ingredients of subletting i.e. parting with possession and consideration by whatever name (in this case commercial) had been 19 established from the evidence on record. I also do not find any good ground to upset the finding of the Tribunal as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in SBCWP No.5856/2016, whereby the tenant's eviction has been directed on ground of material alteration of the tenanted premises without the permission of the landlord as the tenants were found to have removed a 7' x 31' concrete loft as also a pillar from the tenanted premises.
Accordingly the three petitions filed by the tenants are dismissed. Consequences to follow.
A copy of the order be placed in each connected file.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 20 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.