The central legal point established in the judgment is that once a landlord establishes reasonable and bonafide necessity for the accommodation, it cannot be rejected on the premise that the person did not have experience of that particular work or did not have the requisite license/authorization.

ORDER

1. Although, the matter comes up on an interim application (2/2022); but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition was heard on its merit at this stage.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 19.04.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar in Appeal No.11/2020: Sushil Kumar & Anr. vs. National Offset Printing Press whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents-Landlords (for brevity, ’the Landlords’) against the judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar in Rent Application No.41/2017: Sushil Kumar & Anr. vs. National Offset Printing Press dismissing the application filed by the Landlords under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, ’the Act of 2001’), has partly been allowed and a recovery certificate has been issued.

3. The facts in brief are that the Landlords filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the petitioner (tenant) seeking his eviction from the suit shop on the grounds of subletting and reasonable and bonofide necessity. The application did not find favour of the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar and came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2020. In an appeal preferred thereagainst by the Landlords, the findings of the learned Tribunal were reversed qua issue no.1, i.e., reasonable and bonofide necessity of the Landlords for the suit premises and a recovery certificate has been issued.

4. Assailing the findings of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that while upholding the findings of the learned Rent Tribunal with regard to necessity of the suit shop qua Ganesh, i.e., grandson of the respondent no.1, learned Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in deciding the issue no.1 in favour of the Landlords qua necessity of Sushil Kumar. Drawing attention of this Court towards the averments in the rent eviction application, learned counsel submitted that his independent necessity for the suit shop was not pleaded. He, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 19.04.2021 to the extent of findings on issue no.1.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Landlords submitted that findings of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal are based on material on record which warrant no interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

6. A perusal of the rent eviction application filed by the Landlords reveals that beside need of Ganesh, necessity of the suit shop for Sushil Kumar, respondent no.1 was also specifically pleaded. True it is that it is also averred that sitting of Sushil Kumar in the suit shop as guardian would help his son Ganesh; but, it is half truth only as Sushil Kumar’s independent necessity for doing work of notary public was also categorically stated therein. The learned Rent Tribunal rejected necessity of Sushil Kumar only on the premise that he failed to produce any such licence issued either by the State Government or by the Central Government authorising him to work as notary. However, from the material on record including reply to the rent eviction application filed by the petitioner establishes otherwise. The petitioner has, in his reply, specifically stated that admittedly the respondent no.1 was working as notary in the RTO Office, Sikar but, his need for this purpose of the suit shop was disputed on the premise that RTO Office was about 4 kms away from the suit shop. It was further stated that if the respondent no.1 wanted the suit shop for his notary work, he had other premise available for the same. Even the respondent no.2 was suggested during his crossexamination as AW-1 that his son, the respondent no.1 was working as notary in the RTO Office, Sikar. The petitioner has not placed on record statement of any other witness for e