1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sikar in Appeal No.28/2015 whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 17.09.2015 passed by Rent Tribunal Sikar in application no.5/2013 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 9, 18 & 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2001) for eviction of petitioner-tenant on the ground of default, bona-fide necessity and availability of alternative of shop and for non user of the shop. The respondent-landlord stated that the suit shop has been purchased by the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 03.10.2011 and oral information about the same was given to the petitioner-tenant. It has been further stated that the petitioner assured him to tender rent to the respondent on 01.11.2011. The rent for the period of 13 months remained due (1.10.2011 to 31.10.2012 and when the respondent met with the petitioner, the petitioner-tenant showed in his inability to pay the rent as his shop had remained close for about 6 months. It has also been stated by the respondent-landlord in the application that the petitioner assured him to vacate the shop in question. It was also stated in the application that the alternative shops are available to the petitioner-tenant and the shop in question is required by the respondent-landlord to run his shop for Tailoring and Readymade Garments.

3. The petitioner-tenant filed reply to the said application and stated that he has regularly paid the rent to erstwhile owner of the shop i.e. Smt. Kamal Prabha. It was further stated in the reply that the tenant has neither any knowledge about the sale deed nor information was given to the petitioner-tenant. It was further stated that the shop in question was never remained close for six months. It was further stated that the respondent-landlord is having a shop adjoining to the shop in question. It was also stated that the petitioner-tenant was regularly paying the rent to Smt. Kamal Prabha i.e. erstwhile owner of the shop till 30.04.2013. The petitioner-tenant further stated in the reply that the father of the respondent is having number of shops in the town and the respondent is already doing the business of Readymade Garments in one of the shop run by his father. Thus, the respondent-landlord has no bona-fide necessity. It was also stated that after receiving the notice from the court, the petitioner-tenant has also deposited the rent of Rs.5,500/- for the period from Oct, 2011 to May, 2013 in the account of respondent-landlord. Lastly, prays for dismissal of the application.

4. The learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. The respondent-landlord in support of his case produced as many as four witnesses namely AW1 Ashok Kumar Moyal, AW2 Hariprasad, AW3 Dayaram and AW4 Manish Kumar. He also produced documents Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-9 and got the same exhibited. The petitioner-tenant produced himself in evidence as DW1 Hardeva Ram and got 38 documents exhibited from NA1 to NA38.

5. The learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 17.09.2015 allowed the application on the ground of default in payment of rent, availability of alternative shops with the tenant for his business, non user of shop without any reason for last six months and reasonable and bona-fide necessity of the land-lord.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2015 the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sikar who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner tenant vide its order dated 31.01.2018. Hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the judgment dated 31.01.2018, as well as 17.09.2015.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Rent Tribunal as well as learned Appellate Tribunal have not considered the documents available on record w