JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) The impugned judgment and certificates dated 13.02.2019 (Annex. 45) and 30.01.2017 (Ann. 64) be set aside.

(ii) The original application of the respondent of eviction petition be dismissed.

(iii) Any other relief for which petitioner is entitled be given."

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner/tenant under Section 6, 9AI and (J) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 on 03.06.2006. The rent payable by the petitioner/tenant was stated to be Rs.1620/- per month and the premises were rented out initially on 10.10.1980 for a period of nine years. The petitioner/tenant has claimed to have paid the rent until 09.10.1989, however, he did not pay the rent thereafter. The respondent/landlord thus gave a notice to the petitioner on 03.02.2006, giving his Bank account number. The petitioner/tenant gave reply to the said notice on false facts.

3. The petitioner however, deposited Rs.1,05,360/- out of Rs.2,67,380/- arrears of rent upto November, 1996. The respondent/landlord stated that the rent from December, 1996 to May, 2006 i.e.Rs.1,68,420/- was due and more than four months' rent was due from the petitioner/tenant, and according to the provision of Section 9A, a second notice dated 07.04.2006 was given to the petitioner/tenant, which was received by him on 08.04.2006.

4. As the pleaded facts would further reveal, the learned Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 has partly allowed the eviction application holding that although there was default in payment of rent, but the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord/respondent was not found to be proved.

5. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 30.01.2017, the petitioner/tenant as well as respondent/landlord preferred appeals before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, but the same were dismissed vide judgment dated 13.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the evidence and cross examination of both the parties have been misread and the appeal preferred by the petitioner/tenant has been wrongly dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent/landlord knowingly did not encash the cheque in question, just to put the onus of default upon the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the witnesses of the petitioner/tenant were not taken into consideration properly, and the petitioner in fact has not committed default in payment of rent, as the petitioner/tenant sent a letter dated 02.06.1990 along with cheque of Rs.1080/-, which was not adjusted by the respondent/landlord.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for appointment of Mokha Commissioner for the inspection of the disputed rental premises along with possession of vacant premises, which was not entertained by the learned Tribunal, and that, the learned Tribunal has failed to decide the main issue of reasonable and bonafide necessity.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the rent upto 31.05.2019 has been deposited in Bank Account No.10185993728 in SBI, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, and hence, there was no rent due from the present petitioner. Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, the pleas of the respondent/landlord were not maintainable.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that there are two consecutive orders of the learned courts below, which are well justified, and thus, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

12. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent/landlord on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr vs. Uttam Chand and Anr., r