The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of appearing before the tribunal and rebutting claims to contest eviction proceedings.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.1-Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ’the Appellate Rent Tribunal’), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 25.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.2-Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ’the Rent Tribunal’) has been dismissed.

2. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 25.05.2012 allowed the application under Section 9 (a), (e), (f), (i) and (k) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ’the Act of 2001’) preferred on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 viz. Meena Devi and Prakash Chand (both now dead) (hereinafter to be referred as ’the eviction petitioners’) and passed a decree of eviction against the petitioners.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2004, the eviction petitioners had filed an application under Section 9 (a), (e), (f), (i) and (k) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of the respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu from the shop (hereinafter to be referred as ’the shop in question’). In that application, it was claimed by eviction petitioners that the shop in question (situated in Bothara Mohalla, Bikaner) was rented out to respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and petitioner No.1-Badri Prasad at the rate of Rs.200/- per month in March 1985 for carrying out a business in the name of Ambika Trading Corporation. It was further claimed that up to 24.02.1993, respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and petitioner No.1-Badri Prasad paid the rent to them but thereafter they stopped the rent and sublet the shop in question to petitioner No.2-Leela Devi and petitioner No.3-Jugnu. It was also stated by eviction petitioners that they served a notice upon the present petitioners and respondent No.5 on 12.04.2004 claiming the due rent but the same was not paid and as the tenant withheld the rent for a period of more than four months, they are entitled to be evicted from the shop in question and the possession thereof be handed over to them. The eviction petitioners have also sought eviction of rented shops on the ground of bonafide necessity.

4. The said eviction petition was contested on behalf of tenant - respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar only and he filed the reply to that eviction petition, wherein he denied the relationship of ’tenant and landlord’ between him and the eviction petitioners.

5. Rejoinder to the said reply was filed on behalf of eviction petitioners, however, the other respondents - present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu did not appear before the Rent Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them

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

7. The Rent Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their claim, has partly decided the issue Nos.(1) and (2) in favour of the eviction petitioners and against the respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu, however, partly decided against the eviction petitioners in relation to respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar.

8. The issue No.(1-A) was decided in favour of eviction petitioners as well as respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar, however, it was decided against the other respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu.

9. So far as issue No.(3) is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the eviction petitioners and against respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar.

10. So far as the issue No.(4) is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the eviction petitioners and against the respondent No.5-Ravindra Kumar and the other respondents of eviction petition i.e. present petitioners viz. Badri Prasad, Leela Devi and Jugnu.

11. The iss