Kamal Kishore vs Balu Ram on 22 July, 2010

                                       1

              SBCivil Writ Petition No.5295/2010


                           Kamal Kishore
                                 v.
                             Balu Ram


         Date of Order            ::               22nd July, 2010


               HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner.
Mr. KC Samdariya, for the respondents.
                         ....



              To    challenge      validity,            correctness         and

propriety of the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2010

passed by learned Appellant Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in

Rent   Appeal       No.76/2006,    this        petition        for   writ   is

preferred. By the judgment aforesaid learned appellate

tribunal      affirmed    the      judgment           and   decree      dated

28.3.2006 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara.
The    rent    tribunal    while           accepting     the    application

preferred by respondent Balu Ram for eviction of the

premises      and    recovery     of        rent    found    his     bonafide

necessity genuine.



       Learned appellate tribunal accepted the finding

and    also    reached    at    the        conclusion       that     adequate

alternative premises is available with the tenant to

shift his business. Learned appellate tribunal                           also

dealt with the argument advanced at the instance of

the tenant petitioner that other appropriate place is

available with the landlord to start business for his
                                      2

son and held that the choice of place for business is

within the domain of the landlord, the will of any

other person cannot be imposed upon him.



               In this petition for writ, it is urged that

the tribunals below erred while examining the issue

relating        to     bonafide      necessity            and    also      the

comparative hardship. As per learned counsel for the

petitioner       the    adopted   son         of    the    petitioner       is

already working with his father and, therefore, the

entire issue of bonafide necessity is concocted one

only with a view to get the premises evicted. It is

also urged that some other shops are available with

the landlord and by utilising those he can expand his

business.



               On examination of record I found that the

concurrent      findings     given       by   the    courts      below     are

based on sound appreciation of evidence. The adopted

son   of the         petitioner is       in   his    ripe age        and   the

requirement of his separate business is quite obvious,

and for that the need of premises has been rightly

found bonafide one. It is also pertinent to note that

the courts below on basis of the admission made by the

petitioner himself reached at the conclusion                         that he

is    having    adequate    alternative premises                in   his   own

building and as such no hardship will be caused on his

eviction from the rented premises. The findings given

by the courts below being based on sound principles of
                            3

law   and also being a reasonable, does not require any

disturbance by this Court while exercising supervisory

jurisdiction.



          Accordingly,   the   petition   for   writ   is

dismissed.



                                   ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.