The crucial date for determining the bonafide need of the landlord is the date of institution of the eviction suit, and subsequent events, such as the death of the landlord, do not necessarily result in the cessation of the bonafide and reasonable need of their legal heirs.

ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ’the Appellate Tribunal’), whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal) Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ’the Rent Tribunal’) has been affirmed and the petitioner has been directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord within a period of six months from the date of passing of the impugned order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord Kunna Ram preferred an application under Section 6, 9(a) and (i) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ’the Act of 2001’) against the petitioner seeking eviction from a shop situated near to Bombay Motor’s Company, Residency Road, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as ’shop in question’). The said application was filed on the ground of default in making payment of rent as well as of bonafide necessity. Kunna Ram also sought revision of rent under section 6 of the Act.

3. It is averred that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner in the year 1987 on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-, in which the petitioner is carrying on business in the name of S.L. Sharma. It is further averred in the eviction petition that the petitioner paid the rent only up to 31st October, 2003 and thereafter on being asking time and again, the petitioner did not pay the agreed rent and therefore, a notice dated 18.03.2004 was sent to him to end the tenancy w.e.f. 31st March, 2004 on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. It is further averred that in response to the said notice, the petitioner filed a false and frivolous reply on 15.04.2004 and a rejoinder to that reply was sent to the petitioner, but despite that the petitioner did not pay the rent at the agreed rate within the fixed time, so the petitioner is liable to vacate the shop in question on the ground of default in payment of the rent.

4. Further, it is averred in the eviction petition that respondent had three sons; two of them are living separately, and one son viz. Jagdish has died leaving behind his wife and three children, who are living with him in a rented home. It is also averred that respondent is an unemployed person and in dire need to earn his livelihood, however, despite having knowledge of the business of building material, he is not able to do the same for want of required premises, so he is having reasonable and bonafide necessity of the shop in question.

5. In response to the application, the petitioner filed his reply denying the averments made in the application. He has disputed that he is at fault in making payment of rent and also seriously disputed the bonafide need of the respondent in relation to the shop in question.

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

^^1- vk;k vÁkFkhZ&fdjksnkj us mlls 'kks/; pkj ekg ls vf/kd vof/k dk fdjk;k ckotwn uksfVl ds ÁkFkhZ&HkwLokeh dks lanÙk o fufonÙk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frØe fd;k gS\

2- vk;k ÁkFkhZ dks fookfnr fdjk;slqnk ifjlj dh viusa Lo;a ds fcfYMax esVsfj;y dk O;olk; djus ds fy;s ;kfpdk esa of.kZr mn~ns'; vius ifjokjtu ds thfodksiktZu ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkfod vko';drk gS\

3- vk;k ÁkFkhZ fookfnr ifjlj dk fdjk;k iqujhf{kr djokdj ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks iqujhf{kr fdjk;k D;k gks\

4- vuqrks"k\**

7. After taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, the Rent Tribunal decided the Issue Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the respondents, however, decided the Issue No.1 against them and passed the decree of eviction vide judgment dated 05.07.2017 on the ground of bonafide necessity.

8. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellat