Alok Sharma, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 07.10.2016. Thereby the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') was directed to vacate the tenanted premises and a certificate of possession in favour of the respondent-landlord (hereinafter 'landlord') issued on account of his eviction petition based on the bona fide and reasonable necessity of his son having been allowed.

2. Counsel for the tenant submitted that from the evidence on record it was established that the landlord had let out two other shops in the year 2004 and 2008 respectively. He submitted that had there been any bona fide and reasonable necessity of the landlord for his son's business he would not have so done and instead would have required his son to commence business there from. It was submitted that the Tribunal as also the Rent Appellate Tribunal did not focus on the tenant's evidence destructive of the landlord's case of bona fide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop. Counsel for the tenant further submitted that from the evidence on record, it was clear