Rajasthan HC Upholds Eviction Based on Bona Fide Need | Partnership Firm Paying Rent Doesn’t Acquire Tenancy Rights Without Contractual Relationship | Tenancy Exists With Individual, Not the Firm
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a writ petition challenging concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Court upheld the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement of the rented premises, finding no legal infirmity in the earlier decisions. It stated that the premises were let out to an individual tenant, and not to the partnership firm currently occupying the property. Accordingly, objections raised on grounds of non-joinder of parties and alternate accommodations were found to be without merit. The Court concluded that the landlord's decision to evict a tenant based on bona fide need is not subject to the tenant's discretion, and reaffirmed that "it is not within the domain of the tenant to suggest or to show that the landlord does not have the bona fide necessity of the rented premises."
The dispute arose over a rented commercial property located at Tholia House, M.I. Road, Jaipur. The respondent, who is the landlord, filed an eviction application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, before the Rent Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. The eviction was sought on grounds of sub-letting, bona fide personal necessity, and rent revision under Section 6 of the same Act.
The premises were originally rented out in 1954 to Shankar Lal Fatehpuria, father of the petitioners. Shankar Lal subsequently conducted business in the premises under the name M/s Vyapar Udhyog Pratishtan. The petitioners, Arun Fatehpuria and Deepak Fatehpuria, later took over the business operations along with a third partner, Ankit Fatehpuria, and continued paying rent from the firm’s bank account.
The respondent filed an application seeking eviction, citing personal need to establish a jewellery showroom. The Rent Tribunal, by judgment dated 12.10.2022, allowed the application in part, ordering eviction and directing the tenants to vacate the premises within six months and to pay revised rent along with arrears. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal via its order dated 31.05.2025.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending primarily that the eviction application suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. They argued that the premises were under tenancy of a registered partnership firm consisting of three partners, including the petitioners and Ankit Fatehpuria. They contended that failure to implead the firm and the third partner rendered the eviction application defective.
In support of this contention, the petitioners cited the consistent payment of rent through the firm's bank account over seven decades and submitted the firm’s partnership deed into evidence. They argued that the firm was the actual tenant, not the individual Shankar Lal Fatehpuria.
The petitioners also argued that the respondent's claim of bona fide requirement was untrue. According to them, the respondent already had access to three other commercial premises, including two shops operating under the names Amarpali Jewellers and Anupam Trading. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, another adjacent property was let out to Secure Ventures LLP. Therefore, they contended that the plea of personal necessity was merely a pretext.
An application was also filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the Appellate Tribunal seeking amendment of their earlier reply. Another application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted before the Rent Tribunal objecting to the absence of necessary parties. Both applications were rejected.
In opposition, the respondent maintained that the original tenancy was with Shankar Lal Fatehpuria individually, and not with any firm. It was contended that merely conducting business under a trade name or paying rent from a firm’s account does not create a tenancy in favour of the firm. The respondent asserted that the premises were required for establishing a jewellery showroom in a more suitable location for his expanding business.
The respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kahahaiya Lal Arya Vs. Md. Ehshan & Ors. (SLP (C) No.21965/2022) to substantiate his claim that it is entirely within the landlord’s prerogative to choose which premises to reclaim for bona fide use.
The Tribunal, while deciding the matter, found that the tenancy was originally in favour of Shankar Lal Fatehpuria, and not the partnership firm. The petitioners’ objections were overruled both by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court was subsequently called upon to determine the legality and correctness of these findings.
The Court recorded that "basically, the petitioners have raised two-fold arguments: firstly, the rent of the subject premises was regularly paid from the bank account of the partnership firm i.e. M/s Vyapar Udhyog Pratisthan; and secondly, there existed no personal bona fide necessity of the respondent to seek eviction."
It proceeded to note that "this fact is not in dispute that the shop in question was let out to Shankar Lal Fatehpuria and not to the partnership firm M/s.Vyapar Udhyog Pratishthan, however, the rent was paid to the respondent from the bank account of the above firm."
On the issue of who constituted the tenant, the Court referenced Section 2(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which defines 'tenant' to mean "the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any premises to his landlord."
The Court clarified that "a rent petition against the partnership firm is liable to be filed only if the tenancy is created in the name of such firm," and held that "there is neither any provision under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 nor under Order 30 Rule 1 CPC to file any suit against such firm for its eviction in the absence of any tenancy in its favour."
Addressing the plea regarding non-joinder of the third partner and the firm, the Court held that "partners of the firm have no right, title or interest in respect of the rented premises to claim themselves as tenant of the subject premises, either in the individual capacity or collectively as the partnership firm." It further recorded that "neither M/s Vyapar Udhyog Pratisthan nor Ankit Fatehpuria have any right to be impleaded as party in the eviction petition submitted by the respondent against the petitioners."
On the issue of bona fide necessity, the Court observed: "the personal need/requirement of the respondent was found to be bona fide not only by the Tribunal but also by the Appellate Tribunal through concurrent findings."
Rejecting the argument about availability of alternative shops, the Court stated: "it is entirely within his discretion to seek eviction of the petitioners from the subject premises based on his personal bona fide necessity to establish a jewelry showroom. He cannot be forced to initiate such proceedings against the other tenants."
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi, (2016) 10 SCC 209, which stated that "it is perfectly open for the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business."
It also relied on Dhannalal Vs. Kalawati Bai & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 16, where the Court held: "A landlord cannot be compelled to carry on business in rented premises and the proved requirement cannot be defeated by the tenant submitting that the landlord can start or comfortably continue to run his business in rented premises."
Finally, in reiteration of the landlord's discretion, the Court quoted from Kanahaiya Lal Arya (supra): "It is for the appellant-landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision."
After examining the rival contentions, the statutory framework, and precedent cited, the Court concluded: "this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed."
It further directed: "Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shashwat Purohit, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Mr. Jaivardhan Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Ms. Varnali Purohit, Mr. Harsh Parashar
Case Title: Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. Vs. Tarachand Tholia HUF
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:26949
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10566/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
