JUDGMENT :

SANGEET LODHA, J.

1. These petitions are directed against orders dated 30.3.19 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the appeals being No. 38/18 & 39/18 preferred by the petitioners arising out of the order dated 22.2.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Rent Case Nos. 102/14 & 103/14 respectively, allowing the petitions preferred by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioners from commercial premises, have been dismissed.

2. The respondent filed two separate petitions against the petitioners before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan seeking eviction of the petitioners from two commercial premises on the ground of reasonable & bona fide requirement, in terms of the provisions of Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001"). The respondent, who is a lawyer by profession, pleaded the requirement of the premises for establishing his office. The petitioners contested the petition by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the respondent has already established his office on the first floor of the disputed premises and therefore, the requirement of the premises as pleaded is not bona fide. The respondent filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners, categorically denying the factum of the respondent running any office of his own on the first floor of the disputed premises or in the backside of shop No. 2, 3 and 4. It was averred that the respondent acquired legal qualification in the year 2010 and since then he is running his advocacy office with his father in the rooms on the ground floor situated in the backside of shop No. 2, 3 and 4.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence.

4. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal decided the issue regarding bona fide requirement of the premises in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners and accordingly, by two separate orders passed in Rent Case Nos. 102/14 & 103/14, directed eviction of the petitioners from the rented premises in question.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and accordingly, the appeals have been dismissed. Hence, these petitions.

6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though against the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal and Rent Tribunal, the writ petitions in this court are being laid for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the petitioners have filed the present petitions before the Division Bench inasmuch as, against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal constituted under Article 323B of the Constitution of India, keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261, the petition is maintainable only before the Division Bench.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, affirming the findings of Rent Tribunal on the issue of bona fide requirement of the premises, is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal as also the Appellate Rent Tribunal have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of the court to the cross examination of the respondent-P.W. 1-Abhishek Maheshwari, submitted that the landlord himself admitted that there exists two offices in the premises and he has his own office, which is different from his father's office and the way to two offices are also separate. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, while pleading a case of bona fide requ