Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -tenant Chetan Jangid challenging judgment dated 02.05.2015 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the Appellate Rent Tribunal') by which while reversing the judgment of Rent Tribunal, Jaipur(for short 'the Rent Tribunal') dated 07.12.2010, allowed the appeal as well as eviction petition filed by the respondent -landlord and directed eviction of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as evident from the pleadings of the parties, are that the premise/shop in question was let out to the petitioner by Late Smt. Mangi Devi, mother of the respondent -landlord on 01.01.1983 on monthly rent of Rs. 300/ -. After the death of Smt. Mangi Devi, according to her legal heirs, properties were partitioned and the shop/premise in question came to the share of the respondent -Laxmi Narayan. The petitioner did not make payment of the rent from 01.01.2003 till 03.01.2006. The landlord has a small grocery shop adjoining the shop in question and also running a flour mill. The said shops were insufficient for his needs and his business was adversely affected and he was facing difficulty in earning his livelihood. The respondent -landlord wanted to merge the let out shop with the shop in his possession to build a big showroom wherein he would run General Provision Store. The shop in question was needed for his bonafide and reasonable necessity. In these circumstances, the respondent -landlord filed eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal. At the time of filing eviction petition payable rent was Rs. 421/ - per month. The petitioner contested the eviction petition by filing reply wherein he pleaded that the need of the respondent -landlord was not bonafide and reasonable. Measurement of the shop has not been given. In fact, the landlord has got two shops and he is already running his business from these two shops. He has deliberately and intentionally concealed the length and width of the shops and also concealed the fact that he was running two shops and not one shop. The landlord has not come with clean hands before the Court and tried to mislead the Court, therefore, the eviction petition be dismissed. Mr. S.R. Surana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -tenant has argued that the judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal was based on misreading of evidence of P.W.4, Ranjeet Agarwal viz -a -viz the petition filed by the landlord mentioning therein that there is only one shop. It is argued that when there is no pleading of the respondent about two shops in his possession, then adverse inference under Section 114 -G of the Evidence Act ought to have been drawn against him. He concealed this information from the Court to mislead it. Assertion of the landlord that he received the shop in question in partition has not been substantiated by producing any partition deed between the parties. There is no documentary evidence, nor any plan has been submitted giving the dimension of the property. Admittedly, apart from the shops, the landlord has also got a godown behind the shop. He can demolish the wall dividing the shop and godown to extend the shop and satisfy his need, if at all any. Reference is made to statement of P.W.4, Ranjeet Agarwal, who admitted measurement of the shop. He further admitted that area of flour mill shop was 21 ft. x 6 ft. and second shop was 21 ft. x 8.4 ft. Later on, in cross -examination he admitted that first shop was actually 11 ft. long and 8 ft. wide and second shop was 5 ft. long and 10 ft. wide and total measurement of both the shops was 16 ft. x 18 ft. These two shops, if added to the godown already in possession of the respondent -landlord, would be more than sufficient for the needs of the landlord.
(3.) IT is argued that the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought not to have disturbed finding of the Rent Tribunal unless there were any compelling reasons. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Rent Tribunal was very limited. The landlord did not submit any site plan or the map. He did not give any monthly income to show that his business was adversely affected. The Appellate Rent Tribunal also failed to appreciate that the landlord has not stated in his statement that he was putting the articles outside the shop for the purpose of exhibition and encroaching upon the government land. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Pershad and Others, : (2003) 9 SCC 151; Union of India & Others v. Vasavi Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. and Others, : 2014 (1) WLC(SC) Civil 260; MCD v. State of Delhi & Another, : (2005) 4 SCC 605 and decision of this Court in M/s. Omprakash Har Narain & Sons & Ors. v. Vijaya Bank Ltd. : 2002 (4) WLC(Raj) 516.;