Tenants can be evicted for using premises inconsistently with tenancy purpose, supported by sufficient evidence from the landlord.

ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 26.09.2015 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Tribunal") whereby, while dismissing the Rent Appeal No.16/2014 preferred by the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants (for brevity, "tenants"), the final order dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned Rent Tribunal") allowing the original application No.822/2012 (168/2011) filed by the respondent/applicant/landlord (for brevity, "the landlord") under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, (for brevity," the Act of 2001"), has been upheld.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an application against the tenants seeking revision of rent and their eviction stating therein that the subject premises, comprising of a shop situated on ground floor of the property No.533/25 Ashagunj, Ajmer, was let out to Shri Naurat-husband of the tenant No.2 and father of the tenant No.1 on 10.12.2008 on rent @ Rs. 650/- per month for business of green grocery. It was averred that after expiry of Shri Naurat in January 2010, the tenants are occupying the subject shop. Their eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and nuisance/doing of an act inconsistent with the purpose for which the subject shop was let out.

3. The tenants in their joint reply submitted that they are occupying the subject premises as tenants since the time of Shri Naurat Rawat, i.e., grandfather of the tenant No.1. Any default of payment of rent or commission of nuisance was denied.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal framed four issues including relief. Issue no.1 pertained to revision of rent, issue No.2 pertained to default in payment of rent, issue No.3 pertained to nuisance or doing of an act inconsistent with the purpose for which the subject shop was let out and the issue No.4 pertained to relief.

5. After recording the evidence of the respective parties, learned Rent Tribunal, vide its final order dated 30.05.2014, deciding all the issues in favour of the landlord, issued the recovery certificate in his favour. The appeal preferred thereagainst by the tenants has partly been allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 26.09.2015 whereby, while reversing the finding recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal vide final order dated 30.05.2014 qua issue No.2 i.e., default in payment of rent, rest of it has been maintained.

6. Assailing the judgment qua the issue no.3, learned counsel for the tenants submits that since, it is alleged in the application, which is supported by the evidence led by the landlord, that the subject shop was used by Shri Lalit Bhati as his election office, it could have been a case of subletting rather than being of nuisance and in view thereof, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal erred in deciding the issue No.3 against them based on the ground provided under Section 9(d) of the Act of 2001. He further submits that it was imperative for the landlord to have examined the neighbour(s) to substantiate the allegation of nuisance in absence whereof, findings on this issue could not have been returned in his favour. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgment dated 26.09.2015 be quashed and set aside and the original application filed by the landlord be dismissed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal qua issue No.3, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that nuisance/doing of an act inconsistent with the purpose for which the shop was let out, was alleged inter alia on the premise that although, it was let out for carrying on the bu