Alok Sharma, J.

Three eviction petitions were filed by the respondent landlords (hereinafter 'the landlords') against the petitioners-tenants (hereinafter 'the tenants'). SBCWP No. 5855/2016 arises from the judgment dated 18-1-2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan City (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') in eviction petition No. 333/2008, as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan city (hereinafter 'the Appellate Tribunal') vide judgment dated 27-2-2016. Thereunder the landlords' eviction petition on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity was allowed.

2. SBCWP No. 5857 of 2016 arises from the judgment dated 18-1-2014 passed by the Tribunal in Eviction Petition No. 237/2009, as affirmed vide judgment dated 27-2-2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal whereby the landlord's eviction petition on the ground of subletting of tenanted premises was allowed.

3. SBCWP No. 5856/2016 arises from the judgment dated 18-1-2014 passed by the Tribunal in eviction petition No. 334/2008, as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 27-2-2016 holding that the tenants were liable to be evicted on the ground of their carrying out material alteration without the landlord's written permission.

4. At the outset during the course of hearing on a query Counsel for the tenants Mr. S.S. Hora fairly admitted that in the event of any of the writ petition being dismissed, the consequence would be the affirmation of tenant's eviction by the Rent Tribunal, no matter what the outcome in the other two petitions.

5. SBCWP No. 5855/2016 is taken as a lead case and its facts are being adverted to.

6. By a registered lease deed executed on 14-7-1994 a showroom measuring 770 sq. ft. situate at Ratan Bhawan Building, M.I. Road Jaipur was rented out to one Smt. Kamla S. Karnawat (now deceased and represented through her Legal Representative) by one Manmal Phopalia (now also deceased and represented through his LRs) for a period of five years on a rent of Rs. 1250/- per month. House tax, electricity and water charges were to be paid extra at actual in addition to the agreed rent by the tenant. Clause 13 of the lease deed allowed for four options of renewal each for 5 (five years) exercisable by the lessee's notice to the less or three months prior to the expiry of the lease/renewed lease period.

7. The landlords filed an eviction petition No. 333/2006 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') on 2-9-2003 seeking the tenant's eviction and possession of the tenant premises on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. It was stated that the tenanted premises were required for the purpose of business of Rajendra and Raja, who wanted to open a showroom for selling handicrafts, brassware, silver jewellery and other related items. It was further stated that the tenants had purchased an adjoining property from Ummed Mal and also had properties in their ownership and possession at G-300 and G-301 in Sitapura Industrial area Jaipur and hence were also liable to be evicted on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation adequate for their requirement.

8. In a reply of denial, the defence set up by the tenants was that during the life time of the erstwhile landlord Man Mal Phopaliya, the currency of the lease deed dated 14-7-1994 had been extended from 14-7-1999 to 13-7-2004 in terms of clause 13 thereof, the rent had also been enhanced effective July, 1999 to Rs. 1500/- per month and was being paid/tendered to the landlord when due. It was stated that as the lease deed stood renewed upto 13-7-2004 on notice of renewal having been given on 5-4-1999, consequently the eviction petition filed prior thereto on 2-9-2003 (on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity) was itself not maintainable and hence be dismissed. It was stated that the adjoining premises purportedly purchased by the tenant had in fact been bought by M/s. Comet Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. It was further