JUDGMENT

Inderjeet Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23-4-2009 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota whereby the appeal (no.12/2007) filed by the respondent (now deceased, hereinafter to be referred as landlady) was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13-10-2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota in favour of the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as tenant) was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlady Smt. Usha Sharma filed application under section 6 & 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act,2001) before the Rent Tribunal, Kota against the tenant on the ground of bona fide necessity & personal need of the property in dispute and also on the ground of alternative accommodation being available to the tenant.

3. The tenant filed reply to the eviction application and denied the averments made in the application. It was further pleaded in the reply that the landlady is a retired government servant and having other property vacant where she can start her business.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal, Kota framed as many as four issues for consideration. In support of her case, the landlady produced the evidence of herself as PW1 Usha Sharma & PW2 Shyam Sunder Sharma. The tenant in support of his case produced the evidence of himself as NAW1 Dr. Shishil William & NAW2 Usman.

5. The Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties & taking into consideration the material on record while allowing the application under section 6 of the Act,2001 for revision of rent dismissed the application filed by the landlady under section 9 of the Act,2001 for eviction of the tenant vide common order dated 13-10-2006.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the landlady under section 9 of the Act,2001 for eviction of the tenant, the landlady preferred appeal (no.12/2007) before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, at the same time being aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal allowing the application filed by the landlady for revision of rent, the tenant also preferred appeal (no.94/2006) before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The parties, dispute and order of the Rent Tribunal under challenge in the appeals being the same, both the appeals were clubbed together and were decided by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by common order dated 23-4-2009. In the present writ petition preferred by the tenant, the order dated 23-4-2009 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on the point of revision of rent is not subject matter of challenge and the tenant by way of present writ petition has assailed the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal in appeal no.12/2007 which was preferred by the landlady and was allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal thereby directing eviction of the tenant from the property in dispute.

7. During pendency of the present writ petition the original landlady expired and her LRS were taken on record by this Court vide order dated 6-7-2017.

8. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has erred in reversing the finding given by the Rent Tribunal on the issue no.2. Counsel further submits that the Rent Tribunal has rightly held that the there is no bonafide & reasonable need of the landlady either to start business for herself or for her daughter. Counsel further submits that during pendency of the eviction application daughter of the landlord got remarried in the year 2004, therefore, need pleaded by the landlady for her daughter does not survive any more. Counsel further submits that the landlady is having other shops vacant from where the landlady or her daughter can start business. Counsel further submits that at the time of filing of the eviction application the landlady who was a retired government servant was not actually