The main legal point established is that Sections 9(i), 10(c), and 10(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act provide independent grounds for eviction, and the landlord's age and disability can be considered in assessing reasonable and bona fide necessity under Section 9(i).

Prakash Tatia, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 3 field a suit for eviction of his tenant petitioner under Sections 9(i) and 10(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act of 2001") alleging that the plaintiff is in need of the suit premises and since he is a senior citizen, therefore, also, he is entitled for immediate possession of the suit premises under Section 10(c). In addition to above, the plaintiff sought eviction of tenant on the ground as provided under Section 10(3) which provides for eviction of tenant in case, the landlord has incurred any permanent disability due to which he cannot use staircase and requires ground floor premises for his own residence. The trial Court passed the decree for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal need of landlord under Section 9(i) and refused relief for immediate possession under Sections 10(c) and 10(3) of the Act of 2001. The petitioners appeal against eviction decree was dismissed by the appellate Court.

3. The petitioner tenant is aggrieved against the Judgment and decrees passed by the two Courts below for eviction from the two premises and, therefore, preferred these two writ petitions.

4. The facts of both the cases are same in as much as the cause of action for filing two eviction petitions against one tenant by same landlord is personal bona fide necessity of landlord for both the premises as mentioned above.

5. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff miserably failed to establish any of the grounds for eviction and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear from the specific provision provided under the Act of 2001, that the landlord can recover immediate possession in the contingencies as enumerated in the clauses made under Section 10 of the Act of 2001.

6. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner though pleaded that he is a senior citizen and he incurred disability and due to that he is unable to use the staircase, therefore, he is entitled for possession of the rented premises under Section 10 (c) as well as Section 10(3) of the Act of 2001. Since, the plea taken by the plaintiff was not found proved by the two Courts below, therefore, the Courts should not have passed the decree under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001.

7. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, when there is a specific provision available for seeking relief then unless a case is proved under those very provisions, the landlord cannot get relief under the other provisions of law.

8. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, so far as reasonable bona fide necessity of the landlord is concerned, the plaintiff failed to prove the reasonable bona fide necessity. It is also submitted that in view of the findings of two Courts below about physical condition of the plaintiff , it is clear that the plaintiff was not a disabled person. Contrary to it the two Courts held that the plaintiff is an advocate and appearing in the Courts in the ground floor as well as upper floor. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is an old political leader and the need has not developed now. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two Judgment s of Honble Supreme Court in support of his arguments that mere desire of the landlord is not sufficient for possession of the rented premises but the desire must be reasonable bona fide. The Judgment s are :-

1.1999 (1) SCC 439 - M.S. Zahed vs. K. Raghavan.

2. 2001(5) SCC 705 - Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal.

9. It is also submitted that in case there is hardship, then the High Court can certainly interfere by

exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and grant the relief to the aggrieved party.

10. I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.3

11. It is clear that the plaintiff pleaded that he is an old man of 72 years, theref