JUDGMENT

Inderjeet Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tenants') against the judgment dated 6-8-2015 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'Landlady') was allowed and the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan dated 19- 11-2012 was set aside and the Landlady was held entitled to get vacant possession of the disputed shop from the Tenants within three months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Landlady filed an eviction application under section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 2001') before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan for eviction of the Tenants mainly on the ground of reasonable & bonafide need. The Tenants filed reply to the application and denied the averments made in the application.

3. The Landlady in support of her case produced the evidence of herself as PW1 and also of her son Sanjay as PW2 in the form of affidavits and also produced the documents and got the same exhibited. The Tenants in support of their case produced evidence of Bharat Kumar as DW1, Rajesh Jhanwar as DW2 and Ramkishore Somani as DW3 in the form of affidavits and also produced the documents and got the same exhibited.

4. The learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed two issues for consideration, which are as under :-

1 - 3TFTT 3T#TR ciKiRd W ^ % ieR JjRrlftd ^

3j|c|!mdl t?

2 - sr^r?

5. Counsel for the Tenants submitted that the finding given by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on issue no.1 is perverse. Counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed error in reversing the finding given by the Rent Tribunal on issue no.1 in favour of the Tenants. Counsel further submits that the need of the Landlady is neither bonafide nor reasonable and it is mere her wish/desire to get the disputed shop vacated. Counsel further submits that the Landlady has purchased the shop in dispute where Tenants' business was already going on and other vacant shops were also available in the nearby locality but such shops were not purchased by the Landlady which shows that the need of the Landlady was neither bonafide nor reasonable. Counsel further submits that the eviction application has been filed by the Landlady for her own as well for her son's business. Counsel further submits that the need is not bonafide as the family hotel business of the Landlady is going on in the same locality in which her son Sanjay is also a partner from where he can start/do his business of bakery as stated in the eviction application. Counsel further submits that the Landlady prior to filing of the eviction application, on 18-6-1999 has given a notice Ex.A-5 to the Tenants for vacating the shop in dispute in which the need was shown for running of travel agency business for her son, therefore the personal need is not bonafide & reasonable. Counsel further submits that the finding given by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is contrary to the evidence available on record as son of the Landlady Sanjay has stated in his evidence before the Rent Tribunal that he is having family hotel business & also taking care of bakery counter, therefore, the need of the Landlady on this count also is not reasonable & bonafide. Counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has given hypothetical reasoning which is contrary to the pleadings available on record as the Landlady has not pleaded with regard to extension of their business. Counsel further submits that the eviction application has been filed after 16 years of purchasing the shop in dispute and the Landlady is having a number of properties in the city of Jaipur from where her son can start/do their family hotel business.

6. In support of the contentions, counsel for the Tenants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matt