Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—In this petition both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 17th May, 2010 delivered by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur partially upholding the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in Original Application No. 790/2004. The consequence of the judgment dated 17th May, 2010 is that the Original Application of the respondent landlord (hereinafter to be referred to as "the landlord") stands allowed and a certificate of possession issued against the petitioners tenants (hereinafter to be referred to as "the tenant").

2. Facts of the case are that the landlord filed a Original Application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 2001") against the tenant, inter-alia, on the grounds of reasonable and bona-fide need, non-user, default in payment of monthly rent and arrears of rent. The Rent Tribunal allowed the Original Application and issued a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord on all the four counts. In the appeal laid by the tenant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal it was pointed out that the Rent Tribunal had erred in deciding the issues relating to default in payment of monthly rent and arrears of rent against the tenant in spite of the landlord having abandoned the same grounds before the Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal set aside the findings of the Rent Tribunal against the tenant on account of default and arrears of rent but on consideration of the matter, sustained the order of the Rent Tribunal on account of reasonable and bona-fide need of the landlord and non-user of the tenanted premises by the tenant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the impugned judgment dated 17th May, 2010.

4. On the issue of reasonable and bona-fide need the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has found that the landlord, a widow was herself living in a tenanted premises along with her `Jethani' (elder brother's wife), her two sons, daughter-in-law and also her own daughter who owing to disagreement with the husband was staying with her mother (landlord). The landlord was paying a rent of Rs. 3500/- per month for availing the tenanted premises. It was also noted by the Appellate Rent Tribunal that the properties sold by the landlord had no relevance to the filing of the eviction petition in the year 2004 and it had come on record in the evidence of the landlord before the Rent Tribunal that the sales were compulsory sales to overcome the financial difficulties owing the death of the landlord's husband in 2002. The evidence of the landlord before the Rent Tribunal was also supported by her daughter Asha Daga who was staying with the landlord owing to her unhappy marriage and estrangement with the husband. The Rent Tribunal found no substance in the case of the tenant that the eviction petition was filed solely with the intent of having the tenant premises vacated not so much for bona fide need but for immediate sale thereof. The Appellate Rent Tribunal from the evidence on record, therefore, came to the conclusion that the Rent Tribunal had committed no error in holding that the tenanted premises were required for reasonable and bona fide need of the landlord. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has also taken into consideration the defence of the tenant that the tenanted premises only being 15x9 feet were not suitable for the residence of eight persons with whom the landlord allegedly stated that she wanted to stay after the premises were vacated. On the basis of the evidence led in the case including the evidence of the witnesses of the non-applicant, the Appellate Rent Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no occasion to accept the submission of the tenant that the landlord could not utilized the premises for herself and for others. It was also noted that one Shanti Devi had also obtained a certification of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document