Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rasheed Mohammed Qureshi S/O Late Shri … vs Anil Dhamela S/O Late Shri Hukumchand … on 18 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7177]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18448/2019
Rasheed Mohammed Qureshi S/o Late Shri Shafi Mohammed,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 563, Near Nadro Ki Masjid,
Chini Ki Burj, Chowkdi Sarhad, Jaipur.
----Petitioner/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Anil Dhamela S/o Late Shri Hukumchand Dhamela, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o Shop No. 307, Indra Bazar, Jaipur
And Residential Address 684, Frontier Colony, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Ajay Dhamela S/o Late Shri Hukumchand Dhamela, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o Shop No. 307, Indra Bazar, Jaipur
And Residential Address 684, Frontier Colony, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents/Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naqvi Sehban Najib Sabiha with
Mr. Sahil Khan,
Ms. Rabiya Mateen,
Ms. Garima Gothwal
For Respondent(s) : None Present
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment / Order
Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 13.02.2026
Date on which the judgment was reserved 13.02.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the operative Full Judgment
part is pronounced
Date of pronouncement 18.02.2026
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the
order dated 23.07.2019, passed by the learned Appellate Rent
Tribunal, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 113/2017, whereby the
Appellate Rent Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate
Tribunal”) while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (2 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
tenants, consequently, quashed and set aside the order dated
03.06.2017, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur
(Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur), in Application
No.369/2014, wherein the learned Rent Tribunal had allowed the
eviction application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section
9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act of 2001”).
2. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that the petitioner-landlord
instituted an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, inter
alia contending that the shop in dispute had been let out to the
respondents-tenants by the petitioner’s father on 12.09.1997 at a
monthly rent of Rs. 600/- excluding electricity charges. It was
averred that Shafi Mohammed and his wife, Smt. Shakko Begam,
had expired some time ago. Upon their demise, when the
petitioner demanded payment of rent from the respondents, the
same was refused. Consequently, a legal notice dated 20.03.2014
was issued to the respondents intimating the petitioner’s bank
account details and calling upon them to deposit the arrears of
rent amounting to Rs. 34,800/-. Pursuant to the said notice, the
respondents deposited the rent amount.
3. The petitioner-landlord further submitted that he has been
carrying on the business of a Photo Colour Lab since 05.11.2001
from a rented premises situated at Raisar Plaza. He also stated
that with effect from 07.05.2013, he had taken another shop on
rent from one Inder Singh Verma, bearing Shop No. 1668, Baba
Harish Chandra Marg, Jaipur, wherein he conducts the business of
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (3 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
album making. It was specifically pleaded that both the aforesaid
premises are tenanted accommodations and are not owned by the
petitioner-landlord.
4. It was further contended that the initial rent of the Raisar
Plaza shop was Rs. 9,000/- per month, which has subsequently
been enhanced to Rs. 19,215/- per month, rendering it financially
burdensome and beyond the petitioner’s capacity to sustain. Being
the owner of the shop in dispute and asserting his bona fide
requirement thereof, the petitioner-landlord sought eviction of the
respondents-tenants to enable him to conduct his Photo Colour
Lab business from the disputed premises.
5. The petitioner additionally contended that the disputed shop
is situated in the main market area of Inder Bazaar, Jaipur, where
several Photo Colour Labs are already operational. It was asserted
that conducting his business from his own premises at such a
prime commercial location would substantially enhance his
prospects of earning a better income.
6. Upon service of notice, the respondents-tenants entered
appearance and filed their reply, wherein they categorically denied
the averments made in the eviction petition. It was contended
that the petitioner-landlord had voluntarily taken the premises at
Raisar Plaza on rent for operating his Photo Colour Lab, as the said
premises is situated at a superior commercial location, is more
spacious in size, and is better suited for effectively conducting
such business activities.
7. The respondents-tenants further submitted that the shop in
dispute, measuring approximately 8.5 feet × 14 feet, is too small
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (4 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
and unsuitable for running a Photo Colour Lab. It was also
contended that at or around the same time when the disputed
shop had been let out, the petitioner-landlord had taken shop on
rent for carrying on his business, which belies the claim of bona
fide necessity. Additionally, it was averred that the shops in the
vicinity of the disputed premises are predominantly engaged in
the sale of electrical goods, and therefore, the locality is not
conducive for operating a Photo Colour Lab. The respondents-
tenants further contended that for several years the petitioner-
landlord had been exerting pressure upon them to enhance the
rent and that the present eviction petition has been instituted
merely with the oblique motive of securing an exorbitant increase
in rent.
8. The learned Rent Tribunal, after affording opportunity of
hearing to both parties and upon due appreciation of the evidence
available on record, allowed the eviction petition filed by the
petitioner-landlord vide order dated 03.06.2017 and accordingly
issued the eviction certificate.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents-tenants
preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal. The
learned Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 23.07.2019 allowed
the appeal and set aside the order dated 03.06.2017 passed by
the learned Rent Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
landlord contended that the learned Appellate Tribunal had no
cogent or justifiable basis to interfere with and reverse the well-
reasoned findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (5 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
10.1 It was submitted that the Appellate Tribunal committed a
manifest error of law in disbelieving the bonafide requirement of
the petitioner-landlord merely on the ground that he could not
satisfactorily establish that the premises presently occupied by
him for carrying on business had initially been taken on rent at Rs.
9,000/- per month and that the rent thereof was subsequently
enhanced to Rs. 19,215/- per month.
10.2.It was further contended that solely on the aforesaid
reasoning, the learned Appellate Tribunal proceeded to hold that
the bonafide requirement of the petitioner-landlord was superficial
and not genuine. Such a finding is perverse, contrary to the
material available on record, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
10.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submitted that it
is an undisputed and admitted position that the petitioner-landlord
is presently carrying on his business from rented premises despite
being the owner of the shop in dispute. Once this factual position
stands established, the bonafide necessity of the petitioner-
landlord is made out, as a landlord cannot be compelled to
continue his business in a tenanted premises when his own
property is available for occupation and use.
10.4.It was further urged that the tenant cannot dictate to the
landlord the manner or place in which he should conduct his
business. The landlord is the best judge of his own requirements
and suitability of premises. The respondents-tenants neither
pleaded nor proved that the petitioner-landlord owns any other
commercial premises apart from the disputed shop. In the
absence of any alternative accommodation owned by the
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (6 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
petitioner, and there being no contrary evidence on record, the
bona fide requirement ought to have been presumed in favour of
the landlord.
10.5.In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner-landlord has placed reliance upon the following
judgments:
(i) Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Ors. v. Parshuram
Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors.; Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 30407 of 2024, (decided on 02.12.2025).
(ii) Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Eshan & Ors.; Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No. 21965 of 2022, (decided on
25.02.2025).
(iii) Mohd. Ayub & Ors. vs. Mukesh Chand ; AIR 2012
SC 881.
(iv) Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil vs.
Mohammad Gudusaheb; AIR 2003 SC 1634.
10.6.Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord
urged that the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned
Appellate Tribunal may be quashed & set aside and order dated
03.06.2017 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal may be upheld.
11. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to controvert
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner-
landlord.
12. Heard and perused the material available on record.
13. This Court finds that the learned Rent Tribunal had
categorically recorded a finding that the specific stand taken by
the respondents-tenants was that the premises from which the
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (7 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
petitioner-landlord is presently carrying on his business was not a
tenanted premises but was, in fact, owned by him. Upon due
appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced
by the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal returned a clear and
unequivocal finding that the respondents-tenants had failed to
substantiate their plea that the said premises was owned by the
petitioner-landlord and had found no other premises available
with the landlord except the premises which were on rent.
14. This Court also finds that the learned Rent Tribunal
considered and rejected the contention of the respondents-
tenants that the petitioner-landlord could conveniently and
effectively carry on his business from the premises situated at
Raisar Plaza which was a rented premises.
15. Further, this Court finds that the learned Rent Tribunal
categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner-landlord was
paying rent at the rate of Rs. 19,215/- per month, an assertion
which remained unrebutted by the respondents-tenants. The
learned Rent Tribunal further held that the plea of the
respondents-tenants to the effect that the petitioner was in
possession of several other premises was wholly unsubstantiated,
as they failed to prove the existence or availability of any
alternative premises owned by the petitioner-landlord.
15. This Court also finds that additionally, the learned Rent
Tribunal relied upon the statement of D.W.-1, who admitted that it
was for the petitioner alone to decide where his Photo Colour Lab
business could be carried on more profitably. This admission
reinforced the settled legal position that the landlord is the best
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (8 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
judge of his own business requirements. Upon consideration of the
settled principles governing bonafide requirement, as laid down in
various judicial pronouncements, the learned Rent Tribunal held
the petitioner’s need to be genuine and consequently allowed the
eviction petition.
16. This Court finds that the learned Appellate Tribunal reversed
the aforesaid well-reasoned findings primarily on the ground that
the petitioner-landlord had failed to satisfactorily prove that he
was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 19,215/- per month for the
tenanted premises from which he was carrying on his business.
17. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal further observed that the
petitioner-landlord had not established his specific plea that he
was unable to bear the said rent and was, therefore, compelled to
institute the eviction proceedings. On this reasoning alone, the
finding recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal on Issue No. 1 with
regard to bonafide necessity was reversed.
18. This Court finds that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal
committed perversity, illegality, and misreading of the evidence. It
was never the case of the petitioner-landlord that the eviction
petition had been filed solely under compelling financial
circumstances. Rather, it had been categorically pleaded that in
order to expand his business, to augment his income, and to
operate from his own premises, the disputed shop was required by
him. By misconstruing the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Appellate Rent Tribunal reversed the findings merely on the
ground that the petitioner had not conclusively proved the factum
of payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 19,215/- per month.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (9 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
19. This Court further is of the opinion that in his affidavit, the
petitioner-landlord had categorically deposed that he was paying
rent at the rate of Rs. 19,215/- per month. The said testimony
remained unrebutted. Moreover, the respondents-tenants did not
file any application during the course of the proceedings to
summon the relevant records pertaining to payment of rent. If the
respondents intended to dispute the petitioner’s assertion
regarding payment of rent at the aforesaid rate, it was incumbent
upon them to take appropriate steps to disprove the same.
20. Mere cross-examination, in the absence of any substantive
effort to summon or discover relevant documentary evidence, is
insufficient to dislodge a categorical and unrebutted statement on
oath. Had the respondents-tenants genuinely sought to establish
that the petitioner was not paying rent at the rate of Rs. 19,215/-
per month, they ought to have summoned the relevant documents
during the course of proceedings. Their failure to do so gives rise
to an adverse inference that the production of such documents
would not have supported their case. Consequently, the
unrebutted evidence regarding payment of rent by the petitioner
cannot be said to have remained unproved.
21. Further, this Court finds that even when the learned
Appellate Tribunal has not reversed the finding of the learned Rent
Tribunal to the effect that landlord is carrying out business in a
rented premises inspite of his own premises and the finding that
there is no other premises available with the landlord, reversal of
finding by the learned Appellate Tribunal on bonafide need cannot
be sustained.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (10 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
21.1 This Court finds that the learned Appellate Tribunal has
completely misread the evidence and the pleading of the parties
and a perverse finding was recorded by reversing the well
reasoned finding of the learned Rent Tribunal.
22. This Court also finds that the landlord is the best judge of his
need and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord from where to
carry on business.
22.1 The Court is of the said opinion in view of the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajani Manohar
Kuntha & Ors. vs.Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors.,
arising out of Special Leave (c) No. 30407 of 2024, decided on
02.12.2025. The pertinent paragraph is set forth below:
“3.After hearing learned counsel for the parties at
length, it appears that the High Court while reversing
the findings concurrently recorded by two courts proving
need of the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law was bona fide
went to the microscopic scrutiny of the pleadings and
the evidence and reversed in revisional jurisdiction. In
our view, such scrutiny in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is not permitted until the jurisdiction as
exercised by the two courts concurrently is ex facie
without authority which is not a case herein.
4. Now, reverting to the need for the suit premises as
rightly discussed by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, it is apparent that the plaintiff sought
commercial premises situated at the ground floor
occupied by the defendant. The pleadings and evidence
had been taken note, whereby need of the premises
situated at the ground floor was found bona fide as a
commercial premises. The other premises situated at
second and third floor are residential. So far as one
room situated at the ground floor, it was pleaded by the
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (11 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
plaintiff that it is residential though commercial
connection has been taken after filing of the suit in
2016, however, this itself cannot be a ground to nullify
the requirement in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In
addition, the defendant proposing alternative
accommodation cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord to
accept the suitability of the accommodation and to
nullify the need by having other premises which was
allegedly said to be residential and for her use a
commercial electric connection was taken during the
pendency of present eviction proceedings.”
22.2 Further, in the case of Mohd. Ayub (Supra), while discussing
the need and interest of landlord observed and held as under:
“13. In our opinion, Ganga Devi applies on all fours to
the present case. The first Appellant carries on his
business from three small stalls of a shop of the
Cantonment Council whose rent keeps on increasing.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the
Appellants’ present business is more flourishing than
the business which they propose to start in the leased
premises. All the three sons of the Appellants are
educated but unemployed. They want to start business
in the premises in occupation of the Respondent. One
of them is married and has three children. The other
three are of a marriageable age. In all there are
thirteen members in the Appellants’ family and they
are living in three rooms and one verandah with great
difficulty. As against that the Respondent’s family
consists of four persons and there are four rooms in
his possession. It is observed by the courts below that
the Appellants own other premises. However, details
of those premises are not on record. The High Court
has rightly noted that this bald assertion is based on
conjectures.”
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (12 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
22.3 Further, in the case of Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil
(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing the fact that
reasonable time given to the tenant can mitigate the hardship of
tenant observed and held as under:
“9. In this case, it is on record which is accepted by
the courts below that the landlord is residing in Bijapur
City, doing business and is staying with his family in a
rented house. It is also the findings of both the courts
below that he has purchased the property for his own
use and occupation and is now seeking eviction on that
ground. Courts below having found his claim for
occupation being genuine, while considering the
question of comparative hardship they ought to have
taken note of the hardship the landlord would have
suffered by not occupying his own premises as against
the hardship the tenant would suffer by having to
move out to another place. This was not done by the
courts below. The learned District Judge considered
only the affluence of the landlord without considering
the hardship of having to continue in a rented house,
while the High Court took a contradicting view in
regard to the bonafide of the purchase of the house by
the landlord. It also did not really compare the
hardship of the two parties. Therefore, we have
considered that aspect of the case and we are of the
opinion assuming there will be some hardship to the
tenant by having to vacate the premises, same can be
mitigated by granting a reasonable time to vacate,
bearing in mind the fact that the tenant has been
residing in the suit house for considerably long period
of time and this litigation itself has consumed nearly
12 years and the tenant has not taken any steps to
find out any alternate accommodation.”
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7177] (13 of 13) [CW-18448/2019]
23. This Court also finds that the tenancy is from 1997, and
when the landlord in spite of his own shop is doing business in
rented premises, cannot be directed to continue the business in
the rented shop. The landlord need is more enforced from the fact
that he is doing business from the rented shop thus his need
cannot be termed as superficial, but the same has to be treated
as genuine /reasonable bonafide need.
24. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Appellate Tribunal committed perversity,
illegality, and mis appreciated the evidence in reversing the
findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal.
25. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby allowed
and the order dated 23.07.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside,
and the order dated 03.06.2017 passed by the learned Rent
Tribunal is upheld and restored.
26. However, in the interest of justice, the respondents-tenants
are granted six months’ time from today to vacate and hand over
peaceful and vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the
petitioner-landlord. In the event the respondents fail to vacate the
premises within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to execute the eviction certificate issued pursuant to the
order dated 03.06.2017 in accordance with law.
27. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J
Sudha/
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 10:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
