[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9561/2011 Narendra Kumar Soni Versus Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order :
05. 09.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the petitioner Mr. Joga Ram Patel for the respondents BY THE COURT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and certificate dated 03.09.2011 passed by learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur affirming the judgment and certificate dated 24.07.2009 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, this petition for writ is preferred. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord vide notice dated 24.02.2005 sought eviction of the petitioner tenant from the rented premises on the count of bonafide necessity. In the notice aforesaid, it was averred on behalf of the landlord that Mr. Sohan Lal desires to open a shop of readymade garments, thus, the premises rented is required. Suffice to mention that in the notice aforesaid, it was also mentioned that as per the provisions of the Rent [2] Control Act, 2001 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'), the rent of the premises in question required to be determined as Rs.950/- per month. Subsequent thereto, the rent of the premises was enhanced to Rs.1050/- in the month of April 2005 with a condition that the rent shall be enhanced every year by 5%. The condition aforesaid is in consonance to the provisions of the Act of 2001. On being not getting the shop vacated despite service of notice, the tenant respondent preferred an original application before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur with the sole ground of bonafide necessity being available as per Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001. In return, the petitioner tenant came forward with the case that as a matter of fact, the landlord desires to enhance the rent of the premises in question and as such, bonafide necessity as claimed is false. Learned Tribunal after examining the entire evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the necessity of the premises as advanced by the landlord is bonafide, therefore, issued a certificate of eviction. The appeal preferred by the tenant also came to be rejected on 03.09.2011, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below failed to appreciate that the actual intention of the landlord is only to get the rent enhanced and the [3] bonafide necessity put forward is fortuitous one. To substantiate the contention, it is pointed out that the premises in question was rented out on 01.09.1991 with monthly rent at the rent of 450/-. Subsequent thereto, it was enhanced from time to time and ultimately the same was fixed at the rate of Rs.1050 per month from 08.04.2005. At that time, as per the petitioner, a condition was also settled for enhancement of rent by 5% year to year. It is asserted that if there was any bonafide necessity of the rented premises, then the landlord should have not accepted the enhanced rent. Having considered the arguments advanced, I do not find any merit in the same. True it is, vide notice dated 24.02.2005 the landlord also pointed out that the rent of the premises in question should be Rs.950/- per month and subsequent thereto he/she accepted the enhanced rent on 08.04.2005, i.e. at the rate of Rs.1050/- per month. However, acceptance of this enhanced rent in no manner frustrates the bonafide necessity as advanced by the landlord in the notice dated 24.02.2005. In the notice aforesaid, it was specifically mentioned by the landlord that the premises is required to have a readymade garment shop for Mr. Sohan Lal, who is having experience in the trade concerned being a former employee of the National Handloom Corporation. So far as reference of expected rent in a tune of Rs.950/- per month is concerned, [4] that was mentioned only in view of the provisions of the Act of 2001. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the landlord imposed the condition of enhancement of 5% rent per annum while accepting the enhanced rent, then that is not waiver of his/her right to have the tenant evicted on the count of bonafide necessity. Merely on the count that the enhanced rent was accepted, it cannot be assumed that the landlord was not having any bonafide necessity. The enhanced amount of rent, as a matter of fact, in the instant matter is nothing but gradual increase of rent as per the provisions of the Act of 2001. The courts below examined and threshed the entire issue thoroughly and on examination of the merits, gave a definite finding about bonafide need of the landlord pertaining to the rented premises. The concurrent finding so given is neither perverse nor beyond the jurisdiction vested with the court, as such, no interference as desired is warranted. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J.
Pramod