The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and can only intervene if there is an infirmity with the findings of the lower tribunals.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“1. The impugned order dated 18.5.2014 (Annex.13) passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment dated 26.5.2017 (Annex.15) passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal whereby issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-petitioner may very kindly be quashed and set aside;

2. Accordingly, petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the Rent Tribunal may very kindly be dismissed; and

3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble High Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a petition (Annex.1) under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) for eviction of the petitioners-defendants from the shop on the ground of bonafide necessity and default in payment of rent. It was stated that the rent of the shop in question is Rs.6250/-became due for the period April 2006 to 31 January, 2007, which was neither tendered by the petitioners-defendants nor was paid and, therefore, a Notice dated 26.02.2007 was sent to the petitioners-defendants mentioning the bank account details of State Bank of India, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner bearing A/c No.900979050, which was received by the petitioners-defendants on 27.02.2007.

3. The petitioners-defendants filed reply (Annex.2) to the said petition stating therein that the rent of the shop is Rs.200/-per month and after revision of the rent the petitioners were depositing the rent in the bank A/c No.996, SBBJ, Bank, Jai Narain Vyas colony. However, with malafide intention, the respondents-plaintiffs closed the said account and did not inform about the new bank account and the petitioners-defendants sent a Notice dated 28.06.2006 but the details of the bank account were not provided. It was also stated that no Notice dated 26.02.2007 was received by the petitioners-defendants.

4. During the pendency of the above-said petition, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annex.3). The petitioners-defendants filed amended reply to the petition (Annex. 4).

5. On 19.03.2008, the learned Rent Tribunal framed four issues (Annex.5A), which reads as under:-

^^1- fd D;k vizkFkhZ us oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k 625@& : izfr ekg dh nj ls vizsy 2006 ls tuojh 2007 rd dk izkFkhZ }kjk Hksts x, uksfVl ds ckn ,d ekg esa vnk ugha djds O;frdze fd;k gS\
2- fd D;k izkFkhZ dks vius iksrs yhyk/kj gsrq oknxzLr ifjlj dh ;qfDr;qDr o ln~Hkkfod vko';drk gS\
3- fd D;k vizkFkhZ dks vius dkjksckj gsrq vU;= i;kZIr ifjlj miyC/k gS\
4- vuqrks"k\**

6. The Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 18.05.2013 (Annex.13) decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and issue Nos.2 and 3 were decided against the respondents-plaintiffs and allowed the petition filed by the respondents-plaintiffs who were held entitled to get vacant possession of the shop in question and were also entitled to get rent as per the rent-review order dated 05.05.2005.

7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 (Annex.13), the petitioner-defendants preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.05.2017 (Annex.15) while upholding the findings given on issue No.1.

8. Hence, being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 (Annex.13) passed by the Rent Tribunal and the judgment dated 26.05.2017 (Annex.15), passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners-defendants have preferred the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions :-

(a) That the learned Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant that