- (1.) The petitioner-tenant Chetan Das S/o Nekumal Sindhi, aged 74 years, occupying the suit premises situated behind Anand Cinema, Beriyon Ka Mohalla, Jodhpur has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondent landlord Smt. Anusuya Tak W/o Kishan Tak, resident of Jaloriya Ka Bas, Jodhpur being aggrieved by the concurrent eviction decree and judgment of Appellate Rent Tribunal and Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in respect of the residential house situated at aforesaid address Behind Anand Cinema, Jodhpur which was initially let out to the defendant-tenant-the present petitioner vide rent note dtd. 28.5.1965 w.e.f. 1.6.1965. By the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter was finally heard at the admission stage itself and lengthy arguments and written submissions have been filed though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Pateil, 2010 AIR(SCW) 6387 strongly deprecating the practice of entertaining such writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the dispute between landlord and tenant, where the only respondent is the landlord or tenant and held that such writ petitions are not even maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as under: 49. So the same expression namely to keep the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to the High Court 'within the bounds of their authority' used in Manmatha Nath Biswas , to indicate the ambit of High Court's power of superintendence has been repeated over again the again by this Court in its Constitution Bench decisions. 50. Same principles have been followed by this Court in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others etc., 1991 3 SCC 141, wherein it has been held that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior Court or Tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or Tribunal has come to. This Court made it clear that except to this "limited extent" the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts. 51. In coming to the above finding, this Court relied on its previous decision rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, 1986 4 SCC 447. The decision i. Chandavarkar is based on the principle of the Constitution Bench judgments in Waryam Singh and Nagendra Nath discussed above.
(2.) The Rent Tribunal while allowing the Rent Eviction Petition No. 222/2005- Smt. Anusuya Tak vs. Chetan Das passed a detailed judgment and eviction decree by the impugned judgment running into 18 pages on 6.2.2010 and the eviction decree was granted on the ground of alternative accommodation purchased by the tenant's wife at Mahamandir, Jodhpur.
(3.) The defendant-tenant Chetan Das challenged the said eviction decree before the Appellate Rent Tribunal by way of Rent Appeal No. 18/2010- Chetan Das vs. Smt. Anusuya Tak and the landlord Smt. Anusuiya Tak also preferred cross appeal No. 31/2010 on those grounds which were decided against the landlord by the Rent Tribunal, though the eviction decree was granted in her favour and thus, both these connected appeals namely, Rent Appeal No. 18/2010 - Chetan Das vs. Smt. Anusuiya Tak and Rent Appeal No. 31/2010- Smt. Anusuiya Tak vs. Chetan Das came to be decided by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal by the judgment and decree dtd. 19.7.2012. While the defendant's Appeal No. 18/2010 came to be dismissed, the Rent Appeal No. 31/2010 filed by the landlord Smt. Anusuiya Tak was allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal and the issues No. 1 to 4 which were decided against the landlord, were decided in favour of the landlord and eviction decree was granted under Section 9(e),(f),(j) and (k) and Section 10(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The said judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal runs into 30 pages discussing the entire case laws and the various contentions raised by the parties.;