Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
S. 9 : Eviction of tenants-Partnership firm-Tenancy created in individual capacity-Non-joinder of firm or other partners immaterial-Landlord’s bona fide need proved-Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises-Writ not maintainable-Petition dismissed. [S. 2(i),21, Succession Act, 1956, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Order 14 Rule 5, 30 CPC, Ss. 2(i), 21, Art. 226]
The petitioners, Arun and Deepak Fatehpuria, challenged the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, affirming the eviction order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The eviction was sought by the respondent, Tarachand Tholia HUF, on the grounds of personal bona fide necessity and sub-letting, along with revision of rent.It was contended that the premises were originally let out in 1954 to Shankar Lal Fatehpuria, the petitioners’ father, who carried on business under the name of M/s Vyapar Udhyog Pratisthan. The rent had been paid from the firm’s account for decades. The petitioners argued that the tenancy had evolved into one by the firm, which included a third partner, Ankit Fatehpuria. They claimed that non-joinder of the firm and the third partner rendered the eviction petition defective and non-maintainable. They also argued that the landlord’s claim of bona fide need was unfounded as he possessed other properties and had let out shops during the pendency of proceedings.
The issues for consideration before the High Court were:
1. Whether the eviction application was maintainable without impleading the partnership firm and all its partners?
2. Whether the landlord’s claim of bona fide personal necessity could be rejected on the basis of availability of other premises?
The Court held that the tenancy was created in favour of an individual, Shankar Lal Fatehpuria, and not the partnership firm. Payment of rent from the firm’s account did not alter the nature of the tenancy. There was no material to show that the landlord had ever accepted the firm as tenant. The legal definition of “tenant” under Section 2(i) includes persons on whose account rent is paid, but it does not convert an unregistered business entity into a tenant without a specific landlord-tenant relationship.
The Court further held that even if the landlord had other properties, it was within his right to choose which premises he wishes to reclaim. A tenant cannot dictate the landlord’s business strategy or question his choice of premises for establishing a showroom or expanding commercial activity. The concurrent findings of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal affirming the landlord’s bona fide need were based on evidence and warranted no interference under Article 226.
The Court relied on authoritative precedents including:
Bhupinder Singh Bawa v. Asha Devi, (2016) 10 SCC 209, holding that the landlord may choose a more suitable premises for his business.
Dhanalal v. Kalawati Bai, (2002) 6 SCC 16, stating that a landlord cannot be compelled to continue business in rented premises.
Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, SLP (C) No. 21965/2022, holding that a landlord cannot be forced to initiate eviction proceedings against other tenants merely because he owns other properties.
The Court held that neither the firm nor Ankit Fatehpuria had any tenancy rights and hence were not necessary parties. The landlord’s requirement was genuine and the findings of the lower tribunals required no interference. The writ petition is dismissed. (B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10566/2025, dt. 25-07-2025)
Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. v. Tarachand Tholia (HUF), (Raj)(HC) (Jaipur Bench) [2025:RJ-JP:26949]
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand]