Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Surekha Devi vs Rent Control Tribunal Anr on 5 December, 2013
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5083/2013 (Smt. Surekha Devi Vs. Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan & Anr.) Date of Order : 05.12.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Vimal Choudhary with Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT
This petition has been filed against the order dated 05.02.2013, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner-non-applicant (hereinafter 'the non-applicant') for amending his written statement to the eviction petition filed by the respondent No.2-applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant') before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur.
The facts of the case are that the applicant filed an eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal against the non-applicant for her eviction from a shop owned by him and rented to her. The eviction petition was inter alia grounded on the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the applicant's son Praveen, who was at the relevant time was stated to be not only unemployed and suffering great financial hardship for lack of income, but also not able to get married on that count. Other grounds for eviction taken by the applicant in the eviction petition are however not relevant to the issue agitated in the present petition. On service of notice of the eviction petition, the non-applicant filed a reply of denial.
In terms of the summary procedure provided for under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, issues were framed. The applicant and his witnesses submitted their affidavits in evidence and were cross-examined. The non-applicant was thereupon to lead her defence evidence. Prior thereto, however, the non-applicant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to bring on record by way of an amendment to her written statement in the eviction petition subsequent events relevant to the adjudication of the issue of the applicant's bona fide and reasonable requirement in the eviction petition i.e. that of the applicant's son Praveen. It was stated in the amendment application that since the filing of the eviction petition, Praveen the applicant's son had been married and had also commenced business out of his parental house bearing No.4452 situate at Nindarrao Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpaul, Jaipur. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid two subsequent events of the applicant's son Praveen commencing business and also getting married were relevant for the determination of the issue of the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the applicant's son for the suit premises as set out originally in the eviction petition.
The learned Rent Tribunal on consideration of the matter found that the marriage of the applicant's son had no relevance whatsoever to the ground for eviction based on bona fide and reasonable necessity. It also held that the factum of availability of premises in the Nindarrao Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpaul, Jaipur had already been taken by the non-applicant and was already on record. In these circumstances, the learned Rent Tribunal concluded that the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition was without merit and proceeded to dismiss the said application.
Mr. Vimal Choudhary with Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, appearing for the non-applicant, has submitted that it is well settled in catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court that the subsequent events having a bearing on the landlord's right to eviction based on his / or his family's bona fide and reasonable requirement are relevant as they have the potential of eclipsing the ground as laid in the eviction petition. He submits that in the context of the grounds taken in the eviction petition originally filed both the marriage of the applicant's son and his commencement of business from his parental house were relevant factors as it had been earlier stated in the eviction petition that the applicant's son was unemployed and owing to his unemployment he was unmarried. Counsel submitted that the rent tribunal has thus faulted to exercise its discretion in accordance with law by rejecting the non-applicant's application for amendment of her written statement. The impugned order dated 05.02.2013 therefore be set aside and the amendment sought be allowed.
Heard the counsel for the non-applicant and perused the impugned order.
There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the subsequent events in an eviction petition pertaining to bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord can be taken on record. It however cannot be gainsaid that such subsequent events must be relevant and go to the root of the ground of the bona fide and reasonable necessity set up in the eviction petition. In my considered opinion, in the instant case, the subsequent events propagated by the non-applicant before the Rent Tribunal as also reiterated before this Court are of no event and of no relevance to the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the applicant's son for the suit premises. The case of the applicant before the Rent Tribunal was based on the need of the shop tenanted to the non-applicant for his unemployed son to carry out his jewelery making business. The fact of the applicant's son being unmarried for reason of being unemployed was incidental and not central to the ground agitated. It is trite that the landlord has the right to determine the place which is best suited for his / her requirement or that of his / her family. In the instant case, the tenanted premises is a shop situate at Bodio Ka Rasta, Jaipur. The applicant's son is in the business of jewelery making and sale thereof. It is cannot be doubted that the requirement of the shop cannot be said to have been eclipsed on the basis of the mere fact of the applicant's son commencing his business from the parental house. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court that a person unemployed cannot continue his state of unemployment while waiting for the eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises through the legal processes. Business from parental house subsequent to the laying of an eviction petition for vacation of a shop for business cannot be relevant to eclipse the need of the shop of which eviction is sought. In my considered view, therefore the subsequent events propagated by the non-applicant through the application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were quite irrelevant to the fundamental issue of the applicant's bona fide and reasonable need of the tenanted shop for his son's business before the Rent Tribunal.
In these circumstances, the impugned order 05.02.2013, passed by the Rent Tribunal cannot be faulted. It is neither perverse on facts nor misdirected in law. Further in any event in the exercise of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out.
Consequently, the petition is without force. The same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A.