Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Kamla Jain vs M/S. Kishan Engineering Works & Ors on 13 February, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering
Order dt: 13/2/2013
1/18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
Smt. Kamla Jain through her vs. M/s Kishan Engineering
Power of Attorney, Mool Chand Works & ors.
Jain
S.B.CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 6219/2009
DATE OF ORDER : 13th February, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. R.R.Nagori, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, for the petitioner landlady
Mr. Prakash Khatri, present in person (Tenant),
a partner of the respondent firm.
BY THE COURT:
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Landlady Smt. Kamla Jain wd/o Shri Manak Mehta against the defendant tenants M/s Kishan Engineering Works aggrieved by the reversal of eviction decree by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its order dated 5/5/2009 allowing the tenants' appeal No.4/2009 and reversing the eviction decree of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 25/10/2008 in the eviction case No. 18/2004 (Kamla SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 2/18 Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Works & ors.). The learned Rent Tribunal granted the eviction decree in respect of suit shop situated at Chopansi Road, (Inside 'Jalte-Deep' Street), Jodhpur inter alia on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlady and her family members.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady Mr. R.R.Nagori, Senior Advocate submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has grossly erred in reversing the eviction decree relying upon the overruled decision of the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Nanalal Goverdhandas & co. & Ors. vs. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah - AIR 1981 Bombay 1, which was overruled by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Nathulal Gangabishan Khandelwal & ors. vs. Smt. Nadubai & ors. - AIR 1984 Bombay 340 and on the basis of said overruled decision the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal reversed the findings of bonafide need of the landlady arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal without any rhyme or reason, even though two doctors; P.W.5 - Dr. O.P.Soni & P.W.6 - Dr. Sanjiv Sanghvi, clearly stated that on account of heart ailment she cannot easily climb the staircase for her residence on the first floor and there was a banafide need to shift to the ground floor.
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 3/18
3. The relevant para 25 and 26 of the order passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on 5/5/2009 are quoted below for ready reference:-
" 25. AIR 1981 page 1 Bombay "Nanalal Goverdhandas & Co. and others V. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah" म यह स द न पत प द क य गय ह क यक य आवशय ए म नस स त ह यह वय म न म स! " अपन$ न% $ ब ! न' च दहए यह र*वय अनय क ' " प * नह, क य ज ह।
26. यदपप प 1य 2 ओर $ प नय तय दष न % $ अव!" न $ यह पष ह क यक य एव भ व' आवशय " स द रन$ $ स!य$ यह आवशय नह, ह क वय व , य प 1 ह, कय द र पम ण; र, अपप इ थय " अनय कय 2 पवव$चन $ पष ह क प 1य $ प प म ! पर रहव 'य परर र उप!बA ह उ $ द र अपन$ प न * पत म यह ह, नह, ह गय ह क उप!बAपरर र उ 2 आवशय ओ $ अनरप नह, ह, अपप $ व!म त इ आA र पर प 1य न$ व ग परर र, ज" क भE ! पर स ह, बज अप 1ग; $ द ! य$ ज न$ अन "ष च ह ह क प 1य गमभ'र ह य र"ग $ प'कI ह"न$ $ र; ई तन:श $ ग ह" गई ह, वह 'दLय M नह, चढ ' ह, अ :
भE ! पर रहव ह$ म न बन न च ह ' ह। अ : प 1
2 यक य व भ वन पE;* आवशय भE ! पर स
परर र 2 इ स!य$ ह क प 1 ह य र"ग $ प'कI ह"न$
$ र; ई तन:श $ ग ह और 'दLय M चढ व
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 4/18 उ र नह, ', परन प कय $ प 1य न "
वय क' $ रप म क र य अधA र; $ मक आई ह
औरन उ $ द र अपन$ ह य र"ग $ प'कI ह"न$ 2 जच
ररप"र* ,* धचक त 2य ररप"र*, धचक त % $ प$स कपशन
प क य$ गय$ हV प श*-3, ज" म$कW ! ब"W* द र
अA'क , !गन धचक त !य मEह, ज"Aपर " पत स!ख
गय ह, उ म $ व! ब"W* $ य% द र , गई र य ह, व$
थय म दह नह, ह, सजन $ आA र पर यह र य बन ई
गई ह। ब"W* $ "न% यग; प'.W. 5 ओ.प'. "न' एव
प'.W. 6 ज'व घव' $ क र य अधA र; $ मक ज"
न !$खबद हए ह, उनम पत पर,क; $ अव!" न $
यह पष ह क उ "न% गव ह न द र शप पत वय
य र नह, रव य$ गय$, अपप क ' अनय वयक दर
य र क य$ गय$ शप पत पर ह कर क य$ गय$ ह
पत पर,क; म उ "न% गव ह न न$ श'म ' म! जन
2 "ई ज च र ई गई ह", यह नह, ब ! य ह। तनष ष* :
प कय $ प 1य -पतय 1 यह पम ण; रन$ म
तन न अ फ! रह, ह क वह गमभ'र ह य र"ग $
प'कI ह"न$ $ ई तन:श $ ग ह" गई ह
प म मसज! पर अपन तनव ! बन न$ ह$ व ग
परर र 2 यक य व भ पव आवशय ह। क र य
अधA र; द र पत व!, पर आई कय 2 पवव$चन
क * र, $ $ न 2 ज र पवव द बबन खय 1 व
2 तन;*य प 1 $ पक र गमभ'र तदरपE;* तनष ष*
तन ! गय ह। अ : क र य अधA र; द र पवव द
बबन खय 1 व 2 प 1 $ पक म तन;*य क य$ ज न$
तनष ष* अप क य$ ज न$ य"गय ह।"
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 5/18
4. As against this, while giving the eviction decree, the learned Rent Tribunal had found the said bonafide necessity of the landlady in the following terms in para 32 to 37, which are quoted below for ready reference:-
"32. प ध य * न$ अप 1ग; " प श* 4 न"दर द य सज म भ' उ न$ यह स!ख ह क पध य * 'न वष` $ ह य र"ग $ प'कI ह और ग 6 मह $ यह प'I ओर गभ'र ह" गई वह 'दLय% उपय"ग रन$ म अ म * ह" गई ह। इ स!य$ उ $ वय $ तनव $ स!य$ भE ! पर परर र 2 ख आवशय ह उ $ बज$ म भE ! पर "ई उपय तनव 'य परर र नह, ह इ व वह क र य$ $ म न म रह रह, ह। इ न"दर जव ब प श* 5 अप 1ग; 2 ओर $ द य गय सज म उनह"न$ स!ख क पध य * $ प क र य$ परर र $ अ! व फ2 परर र ख !, उप!बA ह। जह उ न$ न तनम *; रव य वह पर अगर वह च ह$ "
रहव ह$ उपय"ग !$ ' ह। इ प र न"दर $
जव ब म 5-6 न$ प ध य
* $ प ख !, पI' ह", यह
वण;* नह, क य ह। न"दर $ जव ब म यह स!ख ह क
पध य
* न$ जह ख !, पI$ परर र म न तनम *;
र य ह। !$क न क न' न% तनम *; र य , यह
वण;* नह, क य और सज जगह न तनम *; ह"
च ह उ $ अ! व "ई भEसम ख !, पI' ह" " ख !,
पI' ह" " क नप 2 पI' ह, यह अप 1ग; न$ अपन$
जव ब न"दर म वण;* नह, क य ह। इ र; प ध य
*
$ प अपन तनव बन न$ $ स!य$ "ई भEसम ख !, पI'
ह", यह अप 1ग; बब रन$ म अ फ! रह$ हV
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 6/18 अप 1ग; 2 ओर $ ज" फ"र" प$श क य$ गय$ ह व" फ"र"
क $ द र ख'च$ गय$ ह क मय ख'च$ गय$ ह, इ
बब फ"र"ग फर " अप 1ग; न$ अपन$ म न
* म प$श
नह, क य ह। इ र; इन फ"र" $ आA र पर यह नह,
मन ज क पध य
* $ प ख !, न$ पI' ह%।
33. W' Wब!E 6 मह$ श म र न$ अपन$ शप पत 2
कय म ह क वह प ध य
* " वयक ग जन ह।
कफर ए जगह सजरह म ह क वह प ध य
* " वयक ग
नह, ज न ह। W' Wब!E 7 शव; बतव$ , न$ ह क प र
खत' $ उ 2 " ' बचपन $ ह इ रप म आ
ज ह। !$क न इ न$ सजरह म ह क वह पवव द
परर र $ अ र नह, गय व नई न बन' ह" " उ $
प नह, और न$ क र य$ पर ह य नह,, इ उ $ प
नह,। W' Wब!E 5 ओमप श ब ह$ ' न$ अपन$ मखय पर,क;
$ शप पत म ह क पध य
* $ प ! मसज! म 5-
6 न ख !, ह व इ $ अ! व फ2 भEभ ग ख !, पI
ह !$क न सजरह म इ न$ ह क वह अ र भ' भ' नह,
गय । इ प र अप 1ग; $ उ गव ह% $ बय न
पवर"A भ ' ह इन गव ह% यह न क पध य
*
$ प 5-6 न$ ख !, पI' ह, यह इन $ न म नन$
य"गय नह, ह।
34. प ध य
* $ गव ह% न$ प ध य
* $ प "ई न
व भEभ ग ख !, नह, ब य ह पध य
* ह य र"ग
$ गभ'र प'कI ह"न ब य ह और प ध य
* " प म
मसज! $ अपन$ म न म ज न$ म 18 'दढय चढन
ब य ह एव ह य र"ग $ प'कI ह"न$ $ र; 'दढय
चढन$ म अ म * ह"न$ $ र; उ " क र य$ $ म न म
रहन ब य ह। अ : प ध य
* " पवव द परर र 2
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 7/18 यक य व भ पव आवशय ह, यह उप!बA कय $ पष ह।
35. प' Wब!E 2 पवजय म र, प ध य * श'म ' म! जन पत ह प' Wब!E 1 मE!च जन " पध य * श'म ' म! जन द र ख मखतय रन म द य हआ ह ज" ख मखतय रन म इ अधA र; द र रर W* पर स!य गय ह मE !च जन शप पत भ' कय म !$ र उ $ सजरह 2 अनमत अधA र; द र , गई ह और इन "न% ह, गव ह% न$ अपन$ तनज' ज न $ अन र कय , ह। अप 1ग; $ अधAव न$ नय तय दष न AIR 1999 SC 1441 Vidhyadhar/Mankikrao and another व AIR 1981 ममबई प$ज 1 न ! ! ग"वA*न एणW मपन' व अनय / श'म ' म रब ई !,! च श ह प$श र बह $ dर न य$ * द य क पध य * कय म वय नह, आई ह और न ह, समशर $ उ $ बय न र य$ हV। इ र; प ध य * $ पवरद पवपर, उपA र;
यम 2 जव पध य
* $ नह, आन$ $ वह अपन'
कय " बब नह, र प ई ह इ स!य$ य धच ख ररज
2 ज व$। !$क न इ $ पवर"A म प ध य
* $ अधAव 2
ओर $ नय तय दष न 1986 (2) WLN प$ज 294 म *
रमव र ! शच एणW मपन' व अनय / श'म ' Eरज
ब ई व अनय प$श र * द य गय क भE व म' "
भ पव आवशय बब रन$ ह$ प$श रन
आवशय नह, मन ह बसf अनय कय $ भ'
आवशय बब 2 ज ' ह। नय तय दष न AIR
1999 SC प$ज 3089 Smt. Ramkubai since deceased by L.R.s. And other / Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and others म भE व म' " भ पव आवशय $ स!य$ SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 8/18 कय म प$श रन आवशय नह, म न ह। अनय नय तय दष न AIR 2001 रज न प$ज 306 ! श' $ व'/म ,न अगव ! व अनय म म नन'य उचच नय य !य न$ यह असभतनA *रर क य ह क व , कय म उपस नह, हआ। !$क न उ मखतय रन म Aर कय म उपस ह" गय व , $ उपस नह, ह"न$ $ आA र पर मखतय न म A र 2 कय पर पवच र रन$ $ मन नह, क य ज नय तय दष न RLR 2002 (1) प$ज 741 रई अहम /श'ग"प ! प श व अनय म भ' व , कय म उपस नह, आय व , मखतय रन म A र उ 2 बदहन कय म आई ', सज न$ अपन' वयक ग जन र, $ दह ब $ गव ह, , '।
36. इ प र; म प' Wब!E 1 मE!च जन ज"
पध य * ख मखतय र ह, न$ वय " पध य * ररश $ र ब य ह और इ प र; $ बधA थय% 2 जन र, वय " ह"न ब य ह यह ह ह क ज"
जन र, प ध य
* श'म ' म! जन " ह वह ज न र,
उ " भ' ह। प' Wब!E 2 पवजय मर पध य
* पत ह
सज न$ भ' अपन' वय 2 जन र, $ आA र पर गव ह
, ह। इ प र उ "न% गव ह% न$ अपन$ अपन$ तनज'
जन $ आA र पर गव ह, , ह। इ र; प ध य
* 2
भ पव आवशय $ बब इन गव ह% 2 कय पर
अपवश क य$ ज न$ "ई र; नजर नह, आ ह
कय%क इन गव ह न न$ अपन$ अपन$ तनज' ज न $ आA र
गव ह , ह पध य
* $ अधAव 2 ओर $ प
नय तय दष न म पत प द स दन % " $ ख $ हय$
अप 1ग; $ अधAव न$ ज" नय तय दष न प$श क य$ ह
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 9/18 उन $ थय इ प र; $ थय% $ सभनन ह"न$ $ र;
उन "ई फ य अप 1ग; " नह, सम! ह। नय तय
दष न RLW 1996 (3) (Raj.) प$ज 362 ग"पवन
प /बग !, म उ पर; $ व , $ प अनय "ई
परर र उप!बA नह, ज" वय क र य$ $ परर र म
क र य$ र न$ अनय क र य$ परर र वय $ स!य$
LELन$ पय नह, क य। इ र; व , 2
आवशय " अधय र"ह, म न ।
37. इ प र; म भ' प ध य
* $ प ! मसज!
म ख $ तनव $ स!य$ "ई म न/जगह ख !, नह,
ब ई ह प म मसज! $ म न म ह य र"ग $
प'कI ह"न$ $ र; वह 'दLय चढन$ म अ म * ह"न
ब ई गई ह और प ध य
* " क र य$ $ म न म रहन
ब य ह एव अप 1ग; न$ "ई परर र क र य$ पर अनय
!$न$ पय क य ह", ऐ नह, ब य ह। उपर" कय
पवव$चन $ पध य
* 2 आवशय भ पव व यक य
ह"न प ' ह" ' ह। अ : बबन खय १ व २ " पध य
*
अपन$ पक म$ बब रन$ म फ! रह, ह। इ स!य$ इन
"न% बबन ओ तन;*य प ध य
* $ पकच म य क य
ज ह।"
5. The position of law regarding findings of bonafide & reasonable necessity as a ground of eviction is now fairly well settled by catena of decisions of this Court and Supreme Court and reference to the following cases may be made in this regard:-
SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 10/18
(i) Usha P. Kuvelkar & Ors. Vs. Ravindra Subrai Dalvi reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 1410;
(ii) Ahmed Farooq & Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra & Ors.
reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1640;
(iii) Chandra Prakash Vs. Hasti Mal reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1267;
(iv) Denzil Najrath Vs. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. - 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217;
(v) Ajaib Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., New Delhi - 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1281;
(vi) Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil - 2010 AIR SCW 6387.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has grossly erred in reversing the findings of the Rent Tribunal without any cogent reason, taking a perverse view of the matter and that too based on a overruled decision of learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court, which has been overruled by the Division Bench of Bombay High court in Nathulal Gangabishan Khandelwal and ors vs. Smt. Nadubai and ors. reference to which has been made in the decision of this Court in the Case of M/s Ramavatar Kailash SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 11/18 Chand & Company & Ors. vs. Smt. Suraj Bai & anr. - 1986 (2) WLN 294, which was specifically cited before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide item no.1 of the list of cases cited before the learned Appellate Tribunal as mentioned in page no.9 of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, but it appears that the Appellate Rent Tribunal failed to go through the said judgment and except giving the list of such cited cases in its order, unfortunately relied upon the overruled decision and reversed the well reasoned and cogent findings of the Rent Tribunal reversing the eviction decree.
7. The relevant portion of Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Nathulal Gangabishan Khandelwal and ors vs. Smt. Nadubai and ors. - AIR 1984 Bombay 340 overruling the decision of learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in the case of Nanalal Goverdhandas & co. & Ors. vs. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah reads as under:-
"The question whether the evidence with regard to the bonafide rqeuirement of the landlord should or should not be accepted in a given case in the absence of the evidence of the landlord himself, would depend upon the facts and evidence in that particular case. But an SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 12/18 absolute proposition that the bonafide requirement should be established by the evidence of the landlord and none else is not proper. AIR 1981 Bom 1, Overruled."
8. The relevant paras 12, 13 and 14 from the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Ramavatar Kailash Chand & Company & Ors. vs. Smt. Suraj Bai & anr. - 1986 (2) WLN 294, in which reference of aforesaid Division Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court in Nathulal Gangabishan's case (supra) overruling the judgment of learned Single Bench of Bombay High Court in Nana Lal's case (supra) are quoted below for ready reference:-
"12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has equally vehemently submitted that this being second appeal, this Court cannot go into the question of fact which has been arrived at by the first appellate Court on appreciation of evidence and has cited a number of authorities which need not be mentioned here. He has further submitted that the first appellate Court has taken into consideration the evidence of PW 2 Narainalal as well as the admissions made by DW-1 Lajpat Rai and DW-2 Chunnilal, and then has come to a finding of fact that the suit premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlady. Therefore, this Court should not SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 13/18 interfere with such a finding of fact. He has further submitted that the judgment of learned Single Judge in Nanalal's case, (supra) has been specifically overruled by a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nathulal Gangabishan Khandelwal & ors. v. Smt. Nandubai & ors. (AIR 1984 Bom 340). AIR 1982 Orissa 183 was based on AIR 1981 Bom 1 and in Gangabishan's case (supra), the learned Single Judge had followed his earlier ruling in AIR 1981 Bom 1 and did not notice the division bench judgment in Nathulal's case (supra) which had been decided earlier. He has also placed reliance on Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Smt. Pritam Kaur (1982 (2) Rent LR 661), V.R. Shah and another v. N. Visalakshi (1983 (2) RCJ 610), and K.C. Bhaskaran v. P.C. Unni (1985 (1) RCJ 34).
13. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the bar and have also looked into the judgments of both the Courts below as also record of the case and the authorities cited before me.
14. It cannot be laid down as a very general proposition that if the landlord or landlady does not examine himself/herself, an adverse inference has to be necessarily drawn. It will depend on facts of each case. This fact, of course, will be considered as a circumstance while considering the case of the, plaintiff and while arriving at the conclusion whether the plaintiff has been able to prove its case of reasonable and bona fide necessity. Ordinarily, a SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 14/18 person for whom there is need for getting the suit premises vacated, should appear as a witness in the Court and make himself available for cross-
examination by the other side. But the bona fide need can be proved by other evidence, both oral and documentary and even by circumstances and it is not correct to state that in every case the plaintiff must enter the witness-box and depose about the requirement. The view that I have expressed above is fully supported by the view taken by the Kerala High Court in K.C. Bhaskaran's case (supra) and a division bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Nathulal's case (supra), Madras High Court in V.R. Shah's case (supra) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sumitra Devi's case (supra). The view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Nana Lal's case (supra) and Ganga Bishan (supra) has already been overruled by a division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nathulal's case (supra). I am in respectful disagreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in Virendra Pal's case (supra)."
9. In the case of Smt. Ramkubai & ors. vs. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & ors. - AIR 1999 SCC 3089, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the bonafide need of the landlord and that non-appearance of the landlord in the witness box to support the SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 15/18 requirement of bonafide need does not vitiate the claim of suit premises. The relevant para 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference:-
"10. We have already noted above that the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlady was accepted by the trial Court but it was negatived by the Appellate Court and the same was confirmed by the High Court. The Appellate Court was swayed away by the fact that the landlady herself did not come into the witness box to support her claim. What is not appreciated by the Appellate Court is that her son Bhikchand who was also her G.P.A. holder and for whose benefit the business is to be set up, did come into the witness-box to support the case of personal requirement. The Appellate Court was of the view that the bona fide requirement is in the first place a state of mind and might be something more and that could be established only by the landlady. In all fairness to Mr. Mohta, we must note, that he conceded that that reasoning of the Appellate Court could not be supported."
10. In view this, the premise taken by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that since the landlady- Smt. Kamla Jain did not examine herself before the Rent Tribunal but only her son Vijay Kumar Mehta was examined as P.W.2 along with two doctors, P.W.5 Dr.O.P.Soni SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 16/18 and P.W.6 - Dr. Sanjiv Sanghvi, who supported the ground of eviction on her medical condition but since medical reports were not produced, therefore, the findings of learned Rent Tribunal deserve to be reversed, is not sustainable in view of the aforesaid legal position.
11. In view above, this Court of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and allow the present writ petition of petitioner-landlady and set aside the order of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal and restore the eviction decree passed by the Rent Tribunal below.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 5/5/2009 is set aside and the eviction decree passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 25/10/2008 is restored The respondents are directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, a shop situated at Chopansi Road, (Inside 'Jalte-Deep' Street), Jodhpur within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31st August, 2013, and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from February, 2013. The arrears of mesne profit shall be cleared within three months from today and the respondents-tenant will further continue to pay the SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 17/18 mesne profits each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the petitioners till the vacant possession is handed over to the petitioners and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondents-tenants shall also clear, if not already paid, all the arrears of the rent or mesne profit within three months from today, otherwise the amount shall bear simple interest @ 9% p.a. and the executing Court may quantify such amount and recover the same as a money decree. The amount already deposited, may be disbursed to the landlords forthwith. The respondents-tenants shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same, if so created, would be treated as void. The respondents-tenants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over or rent or mesne profits are not paid to the petitioners-landlord within a period of six months from today, besides expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the petitioners-landlord SBCWP No.6219/2009 - Smt. Kamla Jain vs. M/s Kishan Engineering Order dt: 13/2/2013 18/18 shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this order be sent to both the Rent Tribunals and both the parties concerned forthwith. No costs.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
S-90 baweja/-