JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’), whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been allowed and the judgment dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal) Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rent Tribunal’) has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises in question within a period of six months from the date of passing of the impugned order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent preferred an application under Section 9(a)(i)(m) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2001’) against the petitioner seeking eviction from a shop situated in a building at 15, Residency Road, Udaipur. The said application was filed on the ground of default in making payment of rent as well as of bonafide necessity.

3. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that it purchased a building situated at 15 Residency Road, District Udaipur from the erstwhile owner on 17.08.2002 and in that building there is one shop, which has been let out to the petitioner/tenant by the earlier owner. The description of the shop was given in para 3 of the application.

4. It is stated by the respondent that the information in respect of purchasing the property was given to the petitioner on 17.01.2006 and the petitioner was requested to deposit agreed rent in the bank account of the respondent. It is alleged that when the petitioner did not deposit the agreed rent of Rs.1000/-, the respondent sent a legal notice to him and despite this he did not deposit the rent. It is further contended by the respondent that the disputed shop is required by it for the purpose of establishing a business after demolishing the entire building.

5. In response to the application, the petitioner filed his reply and denied the averments made in the application. The petitioner has disputed that he is at fault in making payment of rent and also seriously disputed the bonafide need of the respondent in relation to the disputed shop.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed as many as four issues, which read as under:

^^1- vk;k foi{kh us ÁkFkhZ dks fookfnr ifjlj dk fdjk;k fnukad
17-8-02 ls vnk ugha fd;k gS \ ------ ÁkFkhZ
2- vk;k fookfnr ifjlj okyk Hkou iqjkuk gksdj vlqjf{kr gS rFkk fxjus ;ksX; gS \ ------ ÁkFkhZ
3- vk;k ÁkFkhZ dks fookfnr ifjlj dh fgrs"k o fnO; ds O;olk; ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkfod vko';drk gS \----- ÁkFkhZ
4- vuqrks"k \**

7. After taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, the Rent Tribunal decided the Issue Nos.1 and 3 in favour of the respondent, however, decided the Issue No.2 against it and passed the decree of eviction vide judgment dated 01.08.2011.

8. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.05.2015 has set aside the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 01.08.2011, however, remanded the matter to the Rent Tribunal while framing three new issues, which are as under:

^^¼1½ vk;k vkosnu ÁLrqrh ds fnu Hkkxhnkjh QeZ esllZ x.kifr Iyktk iathd`r ugha Fkh \ ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk bl Ádj.k ij D;k ÁHkko gS \
¼2½ vk;k Hkw&Lokeh }kjk Ádj.k ds fopkjk/khu jgrs nqdkuksa dk cSpku fd;k x;k gS \ ;fn gkWa rks bldk bl Ádj.k ij D;k ÁHkko gS \
¼3½ vk;k vthZnkj Hkkxhnkjh QeZ ds Hkkxhnkjksa ds iq= tks Lo;a mDr QeZ esa Hkkxhnkj ugha gS] dh vko';drk /kkjk 9 vf/kfu;e ds rgr ,d vk/kkj gS \**

9. After remand, the Rent Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence in relation to the newly framed issues, rejected the eviction application filed by the respondent vide judgment dated 24.07.2019. The Rent Tribunal has decided the newly framed Issue No.1 in favour of respondent while holding that the petitioner-firm was registered in