This writ petition has been filed by tenant-petitioners challenging the judgment dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal and judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Rent Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the landlord-respondent for eviction of the tenant-petitioners on the ground of bona-fide and reasonable necessity.

Landlord-respondent filed original application for eviction of the tenant-petitioners on the ground of default, reasonable and bona-fide necessity and nonuser. It was stated by the landlord-respondent that he purchased Shop No.6, which was part of House No.A-1, Janta Store, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, through registered sale-deed on 09.03.1989. The petitioners were the tenants in the said shop. They took the shop on rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month on 01.04.1984. The landlord-respondent informed the tenant-petitioners that he has purchased the shop in question and therefore, the tenant-petitioners started paying the rent to the landlord-respondent since March, 1989, but they later committed default in payment of rent. The landlord-respondent required the rented shop for the necessity of his son. It was also stated that the landlord-respondent intended to start business of their sons and his son Jinendra Kumar Jain wants to start his own business. It was also pleaded that the tenant-petitioners are not using the shop and the same is lying closed. The tenant-petitioners filed reply to the original application and denied the averments contending that landlord-respondent has got sufficient premises, where he is running his business in the name and style of J.K. Brothers, Bahubali and Jinendra Kirana Store. First floor of the shop was lying vacant since last three years and landlord-respondent filed the original application with ulterior motive and need was not bona-fide. The landlord-respondent filed rejoinder to the reply asserting his necessity.

Learned Rent Tribunal framed as many as six issues. The landlord-respondent in support of his case produced as many as three witnesses, namely, PW-1 Rajmal Jain, PW-2 Jinendra Jain and PW-3 Satyanarain. He also produced documents Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-6 and got the same exhibited. The tenant-petitioners produced three witnesses, namely, Dwp1 Umesh Jain, DW-2 Laxman Vaidh and DW-3 Jagendra Purohit and got 89 documents exhibited from Exhibit-D1 to Exhibit-D89.

During the proceedings, the application filed by tenant-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal. Ultimately, the Rent Tribunal allowed the original application vide judgment dated 13.01.2010 on the ground of reasonable and bona-fide necessity. The tenant-petitioners preferred appeal thereagainst. During pendency of the appeal, tenant-petitioners filed application under order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC to bring on record certain new facts by way of documents and photographs, which was opposed by the landlord-respondent by filing reply thereto.

The Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide judgment dated 09.01.2015, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant-petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.1526/2015 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Rent Tribunal with direction to provide opportunity of cross-examination to the parties on the documents filed under order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Tenant-petitioners produced the witnesses, namely, Umesh Jain as DW-1, Laxman Jain as DW-2, Fakarrudin as DW-3 and Giriraj Sharma as DW-4 and they were cross-examined by the landlord-respondent. In rebuttal, the landlord-respondent produced himself and one Shubham Jain and they were cross-examined by the tenant-petitioners. After hearing both the parties, the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2015. Hence this writ petition.

Shri R.K. Daga, learned counsel for tenant-petitioners, has argued that the order passed by the R