CW/18762/2025 of M/S RAMPRATAP BHANWARLAL COMPANY Vs SMT NEHA BINDAL W/O LOKESH BINDAL on 10 August 2026

Order

10/08/2026

1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.

2. Petitioners are tenant of respondent in the shop in question. The application filed by respondent under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, pleading the necessity of the rented shop for her husband to shift and use the shop for his business of ready- made garments, was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, vide order dated 21.10.2022, whereagainst respondent preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, vide judgment dated 03.10.2025, decided the issue of bona fide and reasonable necessity in favour of respondent, and granted an eviction certificate, directing petitioners to vacate and hand over

(2 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] the possession of the rented shop to respondent-landlord. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The rented premises is situated in the building of respondent at ground floor, which is a shop situated on the main road at Purani Mandi, Ajmer, wherein petitioners are stated to be carrying on the business of manufacturing and preparing photo frames. The necessity of the said shop was pleaded for respondent's husband to use the shop for continuing the business of ready- made garments, which has to be started by respondent’s husband in two rooms at ground floor, opening in chowk of the building.

4. During the course of arguments, counsel appearing for petitioners pointed out that, on previous occasion when the writ petition came up on Board, an offer was given by respondent to exchange the residential portion comprising two rooms, wherein respondent's husband is presently carrying on his business, with the rented shop of petitioners, however, subsequently, respondents resiled from the said offer. In this regard, counsel appearing for respondent drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 26.02.2026 passed in the present writ petition, wherein the alleged offer of exchange was noted by the Court in presence of counsel for petitioners, but in the absence of the arguing counsel for respondent. However, counsel for respondent submits that respondent is not agreeable to any such exchange of the residential portion of two rooms of respondent with the rented shop of petitioners, and she intends to contest the present writ petition on merits.

(3 of 10) [CW-18762/2025]

5. Hence, with the consent of counsel for both parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on merits.

6. The submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the tenancy in the rented shop commenced in the year 1980 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/-, which was enhanced to Rs.3,500/- per month in the year 2015. Thereafter, respondent sought to enhance the rent to Rs.5,000/- per month, but when petitioners declined to accede to the said demand, the present eviction proceedings were instituted, setting out the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity, and other grounds.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the husband of respondent is already carrying on his business of ready-made garments from the premises situated on the ground floor of the same building wherein rented shop is situated. The premises wherein respondent’s husband is running his business of ready- made garments is located just behind the rented shop in same building and at the ground floor, which too is suitable and sufficient for that business, hence, the alleged necessity of the rented shop, as set out by respondent, is concocted, illusory and unreasonable. He further submits that learned Rent Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly declined to grant an eviction certificate on this flimsy ground of the necessity. However, the Appellate Rent Tribunal, without pondering over the factual backdrop of the case, reversed the said finding and set aside the order of the Rent Tribunal and committed perversity in issuing an eviction certificate in favour of respondent-landlord on the ground

(4 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] of alleged bona fide and reasonable necessity, which is indeed neither genuine nor real. His submission is that the reversal findings recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in respect of Issue No.1, which pertains to the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop, are perverse and contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, it has been prayed that the judgment dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal be quashed and set aside, so as to uphold the judgment dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that the premises wherein respondent's husband is carrying on his business of ready-made garments, are situated in the residential portion of the house, having an opening in the chowk, whereas the rented shop is situated on the main road at Purani Mandi, Ajmer, therefore, the rented shop is more suitable and advantageous for carrying on and to flourish the business of ready-made garments by respondent's husband. It has been submitted that the true factual aspect could not be properly appreciated by the Rent Tribunal, but has duly been considered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in true sense, hence, the eviction certificate passed in favour of respondent, is based on appreciation of evidence and after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Heard. Considered.

(5 of 10) [CW-18762/2025]

10. The present writ petition involves a dispute between the landlord and tenant, in respect of eviction of petitioners from the shop in question on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of respondent. The question of bona fide and reasonable necessity is essentially a mixed question of fact and law, which requires adjudication on the basis of the evidence brought on record. Unless and until, the fact findings recorded by the courts below, or by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in the present case, on the issue of bona fide and reasonable necessity, are shown to be perverse, without evidence or contrary to the material available on record, or otherwise suffering from a patent illegality or beyond the settled principles of law on the subject, such findings ordinarily do not warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid proposition, instead of multiplying the case law, reference of few judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would be suffice:-

(i) Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj [(2008) 9 SCC 1];

(ii) Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329];

(iii) Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony [(2014) 6 SCC 508];

(iv) B. K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 4 SCC 451]; &

(v) Mohammed Yusuf v. Faji Mohammad [(2009) 3 SCC 513].

11. In case of Shamshad Ahmad (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the fact findings recorded by the Appellate Court in

(6 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] respect of the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity, could not have been interfered with and set aside by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

12. In case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (Supra), after pondering over the previous judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, in respect of exercising jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that while exercising its powers of superintendence, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words, the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

13. In case of Jacky (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para No.15, held and observed as under:- “15. A petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India can neither be entertained to decide the landlord-tenant dispute nor is it maintainable against a private individual to determine an intense dispute including the question whether one party is harassing the other party. The High Court under Article 227 has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them within the bounds of their authority but it was not the case of the 1st respondent that the order passed by the Munsif Court was without any jurisdiction or was so exercised exceeding its jurisdiction. If a suit is not maintainable it was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in appropriate proceedings but in no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint.”

14. Keeping in mind the proposition of law as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-referred judgments, this Court finds that the Appellate Rent Tribunal, in the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2025, has categorically recorded a fact finding that the rented shop, which has opening on main road, comparing to

(7 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] the residential portions of two rooms having opening in the common chowk, is more suitable for carrying on the business of ready-made garments by respondent's husband, and that he cannot be compelled to continue his business from the residential rooms situated in the chowk, which has a narrow opening. The factum that respondent’s husband has started his business of ready-made garments in his residential two rooms, due to non- availability of vacant shop is an undisputed fact. Such findings have been recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence led by parties as well as considering the location of the rented shop and premises, wherein respondent’s husband is carrying on business of ready-made garments so also the suitability of the rented shop for respondent’s husband. Such fact findings, being based on the material available on record, cannot be considered to be perverse, much less have been recorded within the jurisdiction and parameters of law.

15. In addition, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has also noticed that another shop, adjoining to the rented shop, came to be vacated during the course of present proceedings, has been used by respondent herself, for doing her separate business of sarees.

16. Having gone through the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal on Issue No.1, and the reversal findings recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, particularly with regard to the necessity of the rented shop for shifting the business of ready-made garments being carried on by respondent's husband, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the findings recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal are just, proper and reasonable, which do not warrant

(8 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

17. This Court further finds that the Appellate Rent Tribunal acted well within its jurisdiction so also in consonance with the settled principles of law while holding that the necessity, pleaded by respondent for obtaining vacant possession of the rented shop to shift and carrying on the business of ready-made garments by her husband therein, is bona fide and reasonable, and accordingly, the Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the eviction certificate, well within its jurisdiction.

18. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate or revisional jurisdiction and is limited to examine the perversity in the order or jurisdictional error or the order suffers from patent illegality or vice of arbitrariness, which leads to injustice. The fundamental object and purpose of exercising supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court is to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds and parameters of law. It would not be out of place to refer the oft-quoted and landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [2001 (8) SCC 97], wherein the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been explained as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of

(9 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis Supplied) The ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber (Supra), has been affirmed and reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu [2026 SCC OnLine (SC) 745], and in Para No.31, following observations have been made:- “31. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration before this Court in several judgments, and the law governing of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by courts and tribunals over which it exercise the power of superintendence under Article 227.”

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in the impugned judgment with regard to Issue No.1, pertaining to the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop for respondent's husband to carry on his business of ready-made garments, cannot be said to suffer from any perversity, jurisdictional error, or transgression of the parameters of law. Therefore, in exercise of its jurisdiction

(10 of 10) [CW-18762/2025] under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

20. As a final result, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. However, since petitioners have been stated to be using the rented shop for manufacturing photo frames since 1980, four months’ time is granted to them to vacate and hand over the possession of the rented shop to respondent, subject to payment of arrears of rent/ mesne profits in terms of the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 03.10.2025.

21. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/ 14