Arun Fatehpuria Vs Tarachand Tholia HUF (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan HC: Tenant Cannot Claim Partnership Firm as Tenant Without Tenancy in Its Name; HC Upholds Eviction; Personal Bona Fide Need of Landlord Cannot Be Overridden by Procedural Objections; Eviction Upheld: HC Rules Non-joinder of Partnership Firm Not Fatal Where Tenancy Is Personal; Landlord’s Right to Choose Premises for Business Affirmed by Rajasthan High Court; Tenant’s Objection on Non-Joinder of Partnership Firm Rejected; HC Upholds Eviction for Bona Fide Need; Rent Paid by Firm Does Not Prove Tenancy in Firm’s Name; Rajasthan HC Dismisses Tenant’s Plea; Affirms Eviction for Bona Fide Requirement and Procedural Validity
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Arun Fatehpuria, affirming the eviction order against him and his partners from a property in Jaipur. The court’s decision on May 31, 2025, upholds the previous judgments of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which had found in favor of the landlord, Tarachand Tholia HUF, on the ground of personal bona fide necessity. The court’s ruling rejected the tenant’s arguments regarding the non-joinder of parties and the landlord’s lack of genuine need for the premises.
The dispute originated from an application filed by the landlord under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, seeking the eviction of the tenants from the premises at Tholia House, M.I. Road, Jaipur. The petitioners argued that the tenancy was originally granted in 1954 to a partnership firm, M/s. Vyapar Udhyog Pratishtan, of which they were partners. They contended that since the rent was consistently paid from the firm’s bank account for over 70 years, the firm itself and all its partners were the legal tenants. Consequently, they argued that the eviction application was defective due to the non-joinder of the firm and one of its partners, Ankit Fatehpuria.
