Point of Law : Tenant fails to furnish undertaking to above effect, respondent-landlady would be entitled to get judgment/decree of eviction executed forthwith in accordance with law.

ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by Presiding Officer, Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No. 119/2015 titled as Hemlata Baxi vs. Kusum Gupta, whereby the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal upheld the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in the Original Petition No. 61/2010 vide order dated 03.08.2015 and allowed the eviction petition filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in favour of the present respondent.

2. The relevant facts, necessary for the just and efficacious disposal of the instant matter, are as follows:

2.1 That Sh. R.V. Gupta, (late) husband of the present respondent, constructed several shops on Plot No. 32 in Arjunlal Sethi Colony, Jaipur. Out of the shops so constructed, Shop Nos. 32(1), 32(3), 32(4) and 32(5) were given on rent to the present petitioner vide agreement dated 01.03.1991 for the latter’s business requirement to warehouse industrial chemicals under the name and style M/s Bakshi Chemicals, at a rental consideration of Rs. 1,750/- per month.

2.2 Thereafter, the present respondent filed an eviction suit on 10.01.2007 (marked as ‘Annexure-1’) with a prayer to evict the petitioner from the aforementioned premises on the grounds of bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent. With regard to the ground of bonafide requirement, it was averred in the said suit that the respondent’s daughter-in-law required the said premises for conducting tuition classes. Hence, necessitating the eviction proceedings.

2.3 However, the said suit came to be compromised between the parties on 22.05.2009. As per the stipulations incorporated into the compromise deed, the petitioner agreed to handover and vacate the possession of Shop Nos. 32(4) and 32(5) to the respondent, after duly taking into consideration the requirement of her daughter-in-law to conduct the said tutorial classes. Furthermore, in pursuance of the aforementioned compromise deed, the rent for the remaining two shops i.e. 32(1) and 32(3) was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,126/- per month.

2.4 Notwithstanding the compromise deed dated 22.05.2009, the respondent filed a fresh eviction suit (marked as ‘Annexure-3’) within a short span of one year, on the same grounds as alleged in the previous suit for eviction i.e. bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent. The subsequent suit was filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for the vacation of the remaining two shops, namely Nos. 32(1) and 32(3).

2.5 In the said suit, the respondent-landlady alleged that her daughter-in-law began conducting coaching classes in the previously vacated premises. However, within a few days, the students began complaining of bad odour resulting from the hazardous chemical substances being stored in the adjacent shops by the present petitioner. As a result, the students refused to attend the classes; thereby, necessitating the filing of the subsequent suit for eviction by the respondent.

2.6 Upon the commencement of the eviction proceedings, the learned Rent Tribunal framed six issues. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.08.2015, the suit was decreed and it was held that the requirement, as alleged by the respondent, was bonafide. However, with respect to ground of non-payment of rent and nuisance caused as a result of the chemicals being stored in the adjacent shops, learned Tribunal held that there had been no default in the payment of rent and no health hazard was caused resulting from the bad odour in the premises.

2.7 Aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2015, in particular qua the finding arrived at regarding the bonafide requirement on part of the respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Vide order dated 12.05.2016, the ld. Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal.

2.8 Therefore, further aggrieved by t