The court emphasized the importance of upholding findings of fact arrived at by the lower tribunals and the landlord's right to choose the best place for doing business.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as ’tenant’) against the judgment & decree dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Appeal No.43/2020 as well as against the judgment & decree of eviction dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur in Eviction Application No.463/2006 (CIS-1069/2014).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents (hereinafter to be referred as ’landlords’) filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the ’Act, 2001’) before the Rent Tribunal for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of default in making payment of rent, personal & bonafide necessity of the landlords, nuisance and change of use by the tenant of the disputed shop for the purpose it was let out. The tenant filed reply to the eviction application and denied the averments made in the eviction application. The landlords also filed rejoinder to the reply. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal framed as many as five issues for consideration which read as under :-

3. The landlords in support of their case examined PW1 Mohd. Naushad & PW2 Mohd. Irshad and produced certain documents and got the same exhibited as Ex.1 to Ex.14. The tenant in support of his counter to the eviction application examined DW1 Mohd. Zakir, DW2 Ahsan Khan & DW3 Niyaj Ahmed and produced documents and got the same exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The learned Rent Tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties on the issues so framed and examining the material which came on record and after hearing the parties passed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 10.12.2019.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 10.12.2019, the tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal after considering the arguments raised by the parties, dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant and affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal. Assailing the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, the present writ petition has been filed by the tenant under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the finding recorded by both the courts below with regard to issue no.2 of personal and bonafide necessity of the suit shop is perverse as there are five shops in all and for one reason or the other the shops were got vacated but even then the landlords did not start business as alleged of Kirana & General Store in the vacant shop, as such the present eviction application came to be filed by the landlords only just to get the suit shop vacated from the present tenant and to give the same on higher rent to some another person and both the courts below failed to consider this aspect of the matter.

6. Counsel for the tenant further submitted that the landlords earlier also filed an eviction application no.527/2009 against Gulab Chand Sain, which was allowed and the shop was ordered to be vacated, against which appeal was filed and the same was disposed of as compromised and pursuant thereto the possession of the shop was handed over by Gulab Chand Sain to the landlords and thus in view of the vacant shop being available to the landlords, there was no personal and bonafide need of the landlords.7. Counsel for the tenant further submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts below on the other issues is also perverse being contrary to the facts on record. Counsel further submitted that during pendency of the eviction application two other shops became available to the landlord for doing business, as such the personal and bonafide need of the landlord didn’t survive any more, even though the Rent Tribunal passed the decree of eviction which has been wrongly affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and lastly, prayed for quashing of both