ORDER

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment and certificate dated 28.05.2019 (Annex. 11) passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Appeal No.23/2015 (C.I.S. No.24/2015) may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, one Smt. Hukam Kanwar w/o Late Shri Chatur Singh Shaktawat (hereinafter referred to 'as original landlady") let out, on rent, a shop situated outside Surajpole, Opposite Ashok Cinema, National Highway Link Road, Udaipur (in short, 'shop in question") to the present petitioner by executing a rent note dated 22.09.1988; in the said rent note, a stipulation was made that in the event of the original landlady requiring vacation of the shop in question, she shall give one month's prior notice in regard thereto to the petitioner-tenant; similarly, in case the petitioner-tenant wishes to vacate the shop in question, she shall also be required to give one month's prior notice thereof to the original landlady.

3. The petitioner-tenant, while obtaining the possession of the shop in question gave, through cheque, an amount of Rs.10,000/-as advance security deposit to the original landlady, in pursuance whereto, an agreement was executed by the original landlady in favour of the petitioner-tenant on 22.09.1988 itself.

4. The original landlady, however, instituted a suit for eviction against the petitioner-tenant before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur on the ground of subletting, reasonable and bona fide necessity, requirement of alternative accommodation and default in payment of rent.

5. However, during pendency of the aforementioned eviction suit, the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001r) came into force, and therefore, the original landlady chose to withdraw the aforementioned suit, and the same was accordingly withdrawn. Thereafter, on 20.12.2003, an application (petition) under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was filed before the learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur by the original landlady for recovery of due rent and eviction of the shop in question on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the original landlady and her family, subletting as well as availability of alternative shop with the petitioner-tenant situated at a distance of about 150-200 feet from the shop in question. The petitioner-tenant filed reply to the said eviction petition.

6. During pendency of the aforementioned eviction petition, Smt. Hukam Kanwar sold the shop in question to Govind Agarwal (respondent-landlord) through sale deed dated 01.05.2009; whereafter the respondent-landlord moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking his impleadment as the sole applicant in the eviction petition, in place of the original landlady.

Thereafter, the respondent-landlord was impleaded as sole applicant in place of earlier applicant Smt. Hukam Kanwar (original landlady), and accordingly, the respondent-landlord pursued the said eviction petition.

7. On 09.04.2010, the petitioner-tenant, through her Advocate, served a notice upon the respondent-landlord, inter alia requiring the respondent-landlord to furnish his necessary bank details, for the purpose of deposition of the amount of rent.

I