Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Poonam Chand Bhati vs Chhoti Devi Dece Lrs on 9 May, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023/RJJP/010015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9778/2016
Poonam Chand Bhati S/o Shri Ghisa Ram Bhati, Aged 68, R/o
858, Ankado Ka Rasta, After Second Chouraha, Kishanpole
Bazar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhoti Devi Now Deceased Through Her Legal Heirs:
1/1 Ganpat Lal S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai, aged 66 years,
R/0 858, Ankado Ka Rasta, After Second Chouraha, Kishanpole
Bazar, Jaipur
1/2 Mohan Lal S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai, aged 60 years,
R/0 858, Ankado Ka Rasta, After Second Chouraha, Kishanpole
Bazar, Jaipur
1/3 Ram Babu S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai, aged 53 years,
R/0 858, Ankado Ka Rasta, After Second Chouraha, Kishanpole
Bazar, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Gosinga
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikrant Singh for
Mr. Rajesh Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
09/05/2023
1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal (for short "ART"), Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No. 103/2013 titled as 'Chhoti Devi vs. Poonam Chand Bhati', whereby the learned ART reversed the finding qua bonafide necessity arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in the Original Petition No. 1006/2006 vide order dated 12.07.2013 and allowed the eviction petition filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "RRCA") in favour of the present respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner-tenant in the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM) [2023/RJJP/010015] (2 of 7) [CW-9778/2016] year 1975. The petitioner-tenant was regularly paying the rent amount, but without any rhyme and reason, a legal notice dated 01.04.2005 was given by late Smt. Chhoti Devi (the landlord) through her counsel for default in rent, for non using of rented premise, for bonafide necessity of premise and on other grounds. Thereafter late Smt. Chhoti Devi filed a petition before Rent Tribunal under sections 6 and 9 of RRCA on various grounds. The petitioner-tenant denied all the averments made by late Smt. Chhoti Devi and the Rent Tribunal framed the following issues:-
"1- vk;k izR;FkhZ us fnukad 01-04-2004 ls vkxs dk fdk;k 550@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls izR;FkhZ dks vnk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pkj ls Hkh vf/kd ekg dk O;frdze fd;k gS\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZ;k dks iz'uxr ifjlj dh Lo;a ds iksrs ds dkjksckj ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr o lnHkkoh vko';drk gS\ 3- vk;k izR;FkhZ us bl ifjlj dk mi;ksx ftl iz;kstu ds fy;s mls fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k Fkk] mlds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr dkj.kksa ds fcuk vthZ dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ 6 ekg ls Hkh vf/kd fujUrj dky vof/k ds fy;s ugha fd;k\ 4- vk;k vthZnkj] izR;FkhZ ls fnukad 01-04-2004 ls vkxs dh cdk;k fdjk;s dh jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- vk;k izR;FkhZ us vius vko';drk ds fy;s IykV u- 38 y{eh uxj] gVokMk jksM+] lksMkyk esa Ik;kZIr mi;qDr ifjlj cuok fy;k gS\ 6- vk;k vthZnkj oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k iqujh{k.k ds }kjk ifjfu/kkZfjr djkus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 7- vuqrks"k\"
The Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 12.07.2013, decided the issue nos. 1-5 in favour of the petitioner-tenant and against the respondent-tenant. Qua issue number 6, the Rent Tribunal ordered increment of rent. Aggrieved against the order dated 12.07.2013, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the ART, who vide impugned order dated 30.01.2016, reversed the finding of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM) [2023/RJJP/010015] (3 of 7) [CW-9778/2016] the Rent Tribunal only qua bonafide necessity and ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the property in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 30.01.2016, primarily, on the following grounds:-
3.1) It is contended that the ART reversed the finding arrived at by Rent Tribunal based on immaterial observations and without properly appreciating the correct findings given by the Rent Tribunal. Further, the conclusion about the vacant shop, lying adjacent to the shop in question, being unusable was also erroneous and never established by evidence. 3.2) It is further contended that the ART placed reliance on judgments that were on entirely different facts and circumstances and which had no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3.3) It is further contended that the ART came to the erroneous conclusion that Smt. Chhoti Devi had chosen the shop in question for Lokesh, without appreciating the fact that Smt. Chhoti Devi was never produced as a witness.
3.4) It is further contended that ART did not consider that the petitioner-tenant has been working and living on the rented premise in question since 1975; that the petitioner-tenant is the sole bread earner in his family having no alternative space for his livelihood, whereas respondents are having sufficient and alternative places for doing business.
3.5) It is contended that ART followed the concept that the landlord is the best chooser for place of his/her own work, which is (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM) [2023/RJJP/010015] (4 of 7) [CW-9778/2016] contrary to settled position of law as held by Division Bench of Principal Seat of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. Shashi Bala Bajitpuria and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 168/2013; decided on 19.08.2015).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj reported in (2008) 9 SCC 1. It is submitted that though the powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all the Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of the law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor re-appreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of subordinate Tribunals like the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Tribunal. The said powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the inferior Tribunals within the limits of law. Hence, considering the fact that the questions of fact qua the bonafide necessity and requirement of the shops in dispute were settled finally by the learned ART after duly taking into consideration the evidence placed on record along with the pleadings and cross examination conducted therein, the same (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM) [2023/RJJP/010015] (5 of 7) [CW-9778/2016] should be maintained and cannot be allowed to be challenged by way a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the writ petition and analysed the judgments cited at Bar.
6. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a speaking order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India extends to keeping the subordinate courts/tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.:
(2020) 7 SCC 327. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record.
7. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 30.01.2016, it is noted that the ART had considered the following factors while dealing with the aspect of bonafide necessity: (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM)
[2023/RJJP/010015] (6 of 7) [CW-9778/2016] 7.1) that Lokesh is a young man having a Bachelor's degree in Arts and that he is still unemployed;
7.2) that just because Lokesh is assisting his father in running and operating the 'Lokesh Kirana & General Store', it cannot be said that Lokesh is gainfully employed;
7.3) that because Lokesh is assisting his father in operating his father's store, does not mean that Lokesh is not desirous of running/operating a business of his own;
7.4) that if more than one shop are available to the landlord, it is for the landlord to make a choice and Courts cannot thrust its own choice upon the landlord.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order of the ART allowing the landlord's appeal vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2016. The ART has given detailed and cogent reasons and has discussed all the relevant facts and evidence on record; and the defence set up by the petitioner-tenant and thereafter returned its own reasons and findings of facts that bonafide need of the landlord and his/her family members was established and the Rent Tribunal had erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord. No narrow and pedantic approach in this regard could be taken by the Rent Tribunal that since a vacant/empty shop was available to the landlord, he/she should satisfy his/her need with that. Merely because the ART has reversed the findings of Rent Tribunal, it does not per se becomes a fit case of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the ART has grossly erred or has given the findings (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM) [2023/RJJP/010015] (7 of 7) [CW-9778/2016] of facts which are bereft of any evidence. The assailing of such findings on the grounds like raised in the present case, that there is no finding of unsuitability of accommodation for the landlord, or that the landlord should adjust his bonafide needs in the other vacant shop, are not sufficient for interference in such findings of learned ART, which essentially remain the findings of facts and are binding even on this Court. If the findings of the Rent Tribunal below have been traversed and dealt with by the ART, which has a co-extensive and superior jurisdiction over the Rent Tribunal below, it can always give its reasons and reverse the findings of Rent Tribunal, as has been done in the present case as well.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned ART has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the ART. The order impugned therefore does not warrant interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /48 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:19:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)