The landlord's right to seek eviction based on personal and bonafide necessity and the court's deference to the landlord's prerogative in deciding the use of the premises.

ORDER

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and the Judgement dated 27.03.2018 (Annex-6) passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent appeal No.133/2013 titled as Ramkumar Vs. Shankarlal Rathi may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgement dated 23.09.2013 (Annex-5) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Civil Case No.58/2011 titled as Shivbux Vs. Shankarlal may kindly be restored."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the late father of the present respondent No.1 filed an eviction application under Sections 9A, 9I, 9J & 9K of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of the shop premises situated outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner on the ground that his wife is the lawful owner/landlord of the shop premises in question, of which the present petitioner is the tenant; the said premise in question is required for their personal and bonafide necessity, and a rent agreement to that effect was also entered into between both the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23.09.2013 dismissed the application preferred by the respondent, aggrieved whereby the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during pendency of the aforementioned appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, the father of respondent No.1 died, and thus, his legal heir, including son (respondent No.1) were brought on record before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 27.03.2018, while quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that incorrect averments were made by the respondent No.1/landlord before the learned Rent Tribunal, to the effect that the petitioner did not pay rent for a period of about 35 months (since August, 2006), and a notice requiring the petitioner/tenant for making the payment of outstanding rent dues to the tune of Rs. 21,825/- was sent to him, and despite of such notice, the petitioner/tenant did not make the necessary payment, nor did he vacate the premises.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner not only made the necessary payment towards the outstanding rental dues, but also made advance payment for the period uptill June, 2011 to the respondent’s brother, and that the same was done through the banking transaction.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned Rent Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and merits of the case in detail, found that no bonafide or personal necessity existed, as claimed by the respondent/landlord by averring that the premises in question was required for the use of his sons, whereas his sons were gainfully employed, and thus, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly ruled in the favour of the petitioner vide its judgment dated 23.09.2013. Thus, as per learned counsel, the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not justified in reversing the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Rent Tribunal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that the respondent filed an eviction application in the year 2011 stating therein clearly that the premises in question was required for the immediate use of his sons and grandsons. Learned counsel further submits that before the learned Rent Tribunal, it was categorically stated and admitted und