ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'tenant') and perused the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Appellate Rent upholding the judgment dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal whereby a certificate of possession was issued to the respondent-landlord (hereinafter 'landlord') (deceased and now represented by legal representatives) simultaneously directing the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord's son Bobil Kumar for the pressing expansion of his wholesale business conducted from the adjoining shop.
(2.) Mr. Reashm Bhargava, counsel for the tenant submitted that the findings of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity are perverse in the sense that the evidence laid before the Rent Tribunal has been wholly misconstrued. It was submitted that from the evidence on record particularly of PW-1-Kaushal Kumar, PW-2- Prem Prakash and PW-3-Bobil Kumar it was apparent that the landlord had access to other vacant accommodation in his control wherefrom the necessity of the expansion of his son Bobil Kumar's business if bonafide could be reasonably satisfied. It was submitted that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have failed to take into consideration the evidence on record on this score which makes out a ground for interference by this court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Reashm Bhargava placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shashi Jain (Smt) v. Tarsem Lal (Dead) and Another reported in 2009 (6) SCC 40 as also on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Abdulhamid Fakruddin Maniyar v. Tulsidas Bhumayya Kota reported in 2002 (1) RCR 50 and the Delhi High Court in P.S. Devgun v. S.P. Walia reported in 1975 RCR 564. Counsel submitted on strength of authority specially of the Bombay and Delhi High Court that where a landlord had proved access to other vacant property/properties during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, and which he let out no case of bonafide and reasonable necessity can be made out, as it cannot be left to the sweet will of the landlord to seek eviction from a particular tenanted shop without satisfying the court that the propagated reasonable and bonafide necessity could only be satisfied from tenanted shop and not from the other vacant premises in the landlord's possession at any time, since the commencement of the litigation for the tenant's eviction.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Mohit Gupta, counsel for the landlord on his part has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in cases of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal reported in AIR 1997 SC 2399, Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Bros. And Another reported in AIR 1998 SC 2730 and Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava reported in AIR 2001 SC 803 to contend that, for one a finding of bonafide and reasonable necessity arrived at by the Rent Tribunal as upheld by Appellate Rent Tribunal after considering the evidences is purely one of fact and cannot be re-appreciated or reweighed by the High Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad (supra) and Gaya Prasad (supra) has held that the crucial date for determination of the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord is when it crystallizes as on the date of the commencement of the lis. Mr.Mohit Gupta submitted that a subsequent event unless it eclipses the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord cannot be considered in an eviction petition in view of the notoriously long life of landlord tenant litigations in the country. And if every subsequent event were to be indiscriminately considered, it would become a perpetual unending exercise far removed from the cause of action at the commencement of the lis. Mr.Mohit Gupta then submitted that aside of above, even otherwise in the facts of the case the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for her son Bobil Kumar was made out. It was submitted that evidence on record established that Bobil Kumar, the landlord's son was running a 'L' shaped shop adjoining the tenanted premises and required the tenanted premises for extending and squaring his shop to facilitate his wholesale grocery business therefrom which was quickly expanding but lack of space was an obstruction thereto.;