1. - This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 30-1-2010 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Alwar (hereinafter `the Appellate Tribunal') dismissing petitioner-non-applicant-tenant's (hereinafter `the tenant') statutory appeal and affirming the judgment of eviction against the tenant and certificate of possession dated 19-5-2007 passed in favour of the respondent-applicant-landlord (hereinafter `the landlord') by the Rent Tribunal Alwar (hereinafter `the Tribunal').

2. The facts of the case are that the landlord Nanak Chand (deaf and dumb through next friend his own brother Saubhagya Chand) filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the 2001 Act') against the tenant in respect of a shop situate at Kedalganj Alwar (hereinafter `the tenanted premises') stating that the shop was given out on rent to the tenant's father on 14-1-1963. Subsequent to death of his father the tenant continued in possession of the tenanted premises and was paying rent to the landlord, establishing landlord-tenant relationship between them. The grounds for eviction raised in the eviction petition were bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord (Section 9(i) of the 2001 Act) for the business of his grand son Priyank Jain, who at the relevant time was 23 years of age and unemployed; the tenant had made material alteration in the tenanted premises making out a ground for eviction of the tenant under Section 9(c) of the 2001 Act; and that for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition on 27-8-2003 the tenant was not using the tenanted premises and consequently the tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 9(k) of the 2001 Act. It was stated that the electricity connection to the tenanted premises had been disconnected for years prior to filing of the eviction petition. On service of notice of eviction petition reply of denial was filed by the tenant. On pleadings of the landlord and the tenant, the Tribunal framed five issues which loosely translated, are as under:-

(i) Whether the landlord required the tenanted premises bona fidely and reasonably for his grand son Priyank Jain, who was 23 years of age and unemployed for engaging in business therefrom?

(ii) whether the tenant had carried out material alterations in the tenanted premises diluting value of the premises?

(iii) whether the tenant had not used the tenanted premises for over six months prior to filing of the eviction petition?

(iv) Whether in view of the landlord having several other shops, his bona fide and reasonable necessity, if any, could be elsewhere satisfied, and that the eviction of tenant from the tenanted premises would constitute comparative hardship for the tenant as against the alleged bona fide reasonable necessity of the landlord?

(v) Relief?

3. On consideration of the matter the Tribunal found that the landlord had not been able to prove the first and second issues with regard to his bona fide and reasonable necessity of the tenanted premises and material alteration by the tenant reducing the value of the tenanted premises. However, in respect of issue No.3 with regard to non user of the tenanted premises by the tenant for over six months prior to filing of eviction petition, from the evidence on record the Tribunal found that there was no electricity connection in the tenanted premises for more than six months prior to filing of eviction petition, and also that no document establishing use of the tenanted premises by the tenant, such as account-books and bills of sale and purchase, were produced by the tenant. And thus the best evidence of user of tenanted premises was kept away by the tenant adverse inference against him was to be drawn. Consequently the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case set up by the landlord based on averments in eviction petition, affidavits in evidence in support thereof remained unshaken and established non user of the tenanted premises for over six months prior to fil