- (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant assailing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Tribunal, Kota in its order dated 3.5.2008 (Ann.6)upholding the personal & bonafide necessity of non-petitioner/landlord.
(2.) APPLICATION under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed by the non-petitioner in the year 2005 wherein one of the grounds raised for eviction was personal & bonafide necessity of the landlord. After reply being filed by the petitioner, issues were framed by the Rent Tribunal, which are quoted as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... After the parties have led their evidence and finding was recorded by the Rent Tribunal in favour of the non-petitioner/landlord upholding his personal & bonafide necessity. The petitioner-tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which came to be rejected vide order dated 19.12.2011. One of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that the tenancy rights were created since long but one additional godown was let out to him in the year 2004 and an application came to be filed after year or so, but that aspect of the matter has not been examined in right perspective by the Tribunal as to whether there can be any personal & bonafide necessity of the non-petitioner/landlord when the godown itself were let out in the year 2004. It was observed by the Tribunal that the tenancy rights being created since long and personal & bonafide necessity on non-petitioner/landlord was examined on the basis of relevant material which came on record and additional godown even if let out in 2004 that will not bear any consequence so far as personal & bonafide necessity is concerned. Taking note thereof, the contention advanced by the petitioner was repelled by the Tribunal and also in the appeal preferred, the contention does not find favour and came to be rejected. Counsel further tried to convince this Court that the concurrent findings of fact which has been recorded by both the Tribunals are totally perverse and require interference by this Court.
(3.) COUNSEL further submits that there was legal issue raised for consideration that demised premises was let out to the firm which was not impleaded as respondent and there was no personal & bonafide necessity of the respondent. As such, the very application filed before the Tribunal was not maintainable. However, both the Tribunals have recorded a finding in favour of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the orders impugned passed by both the Tribunals. This Court finds that the concurrent finding with respect to personal & bonafide necessity of the non-petitioner/landlord has been recorded and as regards impleadment of the firm is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that at the time of filing of application except Santosh Kumar no one else was the partner and merely because the title of the firm in place of partnership, proprietorship has been mentioned that is not going to make any change when the firm & the working partner Santosh Kumar are impleaded as respondents in the application and their defence has been taken note of and after going through the concurrent finding of fact, this Court finds no manifest error being committed by both the Tribunals in passing the orders impugned, which may require interference in the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ;