JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the judgment and recovery certificate dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, whereby Appeal No. 98/2007 was allowed and the judgment and recovery certificate dated 20.04.2007, passed by the Rent Tribunal, was set aside.

2. The relevant facts, necessary for the just and efficacious adjudication of the instant writ petition, are as follows:-

2/1. That the respondent-landlady filed an Original Application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-tenant, for eviction from the subject properties encompassing of a shop and godown, on the ground of bonafide necessity.

2/2. That in the said Original Application, it was averred that the son of the respondent-landlady, required the shop and godown in question, for conducting business therein. It is pertinent to note that the subject properties are situated in Kota, Rajasthan.

2/3. That the petitioner-tenant, by way of their reply, contested the ground of bonafide necessity as raised by the respondent-landlady inter-alia alleging that the respondent-landlady along with her son Mr. Jitendra Rawat, for whose purported business the necessity has allegedly arisen, reside in Village Medh, Uttarakhand.

2/4. That after hearing the contentions raised by the respondent-landlady as well as the petitioner-tenant, the learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the Original Application vide order dated 20.04.2007.

2/5. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent-landlady filed Appeal No.98/2007 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

2/6. That vide order dated 14.07.2010, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlady and ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the subject properties herein.

2/7. That being aggrieved of the impugned order of eviction dated 14.07.2010, the petitioner-tenant has preferred the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has contended that the impugned order dated 14.07.2010 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and erroneous on the face of the record. In order to substantiate upon the said contention, learned counsel raised the following grounds:

3/1. That the respondent-landlady along with her son, Mr. Jitendra Rawat, qua whom the bonafide necessity of conducting business has arisen, reside in Village Medh-Uttarakhand. Whereas, the subject properties are situated in Kota. Therefore, at the very outset, it is apparent that the respondent-landlady as well as her son cannot operate and/or conduct any business in Kota. Moreover, it was also stated that the son of the respondent-landlady is engaged in looking after his late father’s properties in Medh, Uttarakhand. Thus, the possibility of relocating to Kota for conducting business therein does not arise and the consequential ground of bonafide necessity is not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3/2. That during the pendency of the present writ petition, another shop owned by the respondent-landlady was vacated. Yet, despite conducting her son’s business therein, the respondent-landlady further let out the premises to another tenant. Thus, contravening the ground of bonafide necessity.

3/3. That the respondent-landlady does not own and/or possess any residential premises in Kota. Every property owned by the respondent-landlady in the city has been let out for commercial activities. Thus, it can be deduced that if any bonafide necessity for conducting business indeed subsists, then the respondent-landlady would have kept a vacant premises in Kota for residential purposes.

3/4. That the respondent-landlady and her son, Mr. Jitendra Rawat, in their cross-examination before the Tribunal, furnished contradictory statements qua their source of income and ownership of land and resources in Uttarakhand, thereby, casting a doubt upon the genuineness of their need to conduct business