In an eviction petition under Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the landlord must establish landlord-tenant relationship with the tenant and prove the grounds for eviction.

1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 26.09.2014, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota concurring with the Rent Tribunal's judgment dated 12.12.2012 dismissing the petitioner-landlord-applicant's (hereinafter "the applicant") eviction petition under Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001').

2. The applicant sought eviction of the respondent-non-applicant purportedly the tenant (hereinafter `the non-applicant') from the tenanted premises described in the petition. It was the case of the applicant that the non-applicant had been his tenant since June, 2003 @ Rs. 350/- pm, but in default on the payment of due rent since July, 2007 in spite of a registered notice as mandated under the proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 sent on 01.04.2008 by the applicant's counsel. It was alleged that in the circumstances, the non-applicant being in default of payment of rent in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, was liable to be evicted from the premises in issue. A certificate of possession in the circumstances was sought by the applicant. The applicant further alleged that without the applicant's permission, the non-applicant had obtained a water connection in the tenanted premises in his own name and thereby violated the agreed terms and conditions between the parties entitling the applicant to a decree of eviction also on that count. It is further alleged that the non-applicant had obtained alternate accommodation adequate for his user elsewhere in Bapu Nagar Kacchi Basti, near Stone Mandi, Kota and on this count also in terms of Section 9(j) of the Act of 2001 the applicant was entitled to eviction of the non-applicant. It was further alleged that the non-applicant was prone to creating nuisance after getting inebriated following which he used to get into a fight with one Girraj Prasad Mehra, another tenant of the applicant in an adjoining premises, consequent to which the said Girraj Prasad Mehra had to vacate the tenanted premises resulting in loss of rent to the applicant. In the circumstances, it was prayed that a judgment of eviction be passed against the non-applicant and a certificate of possession in respect of the purportedly tenanted premises be issued in favour of the applicant.

3. Averments in the eviction petition were denied in the reply filed by the non-applicant. The case of the non-applicant was that the entire eviction petition was only a ruse to obtain possession of the property not in the ownership of the applicant and of which the non-applicant was not the landlord. It was asserted that the non-applicant himself had made construction of two rooms between 1192 and 1994 in a Kacchi Basti spread over Government land and had been living there since. It was submitted that in the survey of the Kota Municipal Corporation, the possession of the non-applicant over the house in issue in the eviction petition was established. It was submitted that the non-applicant had in fact obtained a water connection as allowed by the concerned department to those unauthorisedly occupying land in the Kacchi Basti spread over Government land.

4. The applicant examined himself in support of his claim as also one Girraj Prasad Mehra, his purported erstwhile tenant living in the vicinity of the premises in issue before the Rent Tribunal. Five documents were relied upon purporting to establish that the tenanted premises was in the ownership of the applicant. The non-applicant relied upon his own evidence and that of Jagdish, Badri Lal, Madan Lal and Satish Gupta in support of his defence to the eviction petition laid by the applicant.

5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed six issues. Issue No. 1 related to question as to whether the non-applicant was the tenant of the applicant on a rent of Rs. 350/- p.m. since June, 2003 and was in default on payment of the rent commencing June, 2007. The s