The court affirmed that eviction under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act does not require prior notice for arrears of rent, focusing on bonafide necessity.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:

1. the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Case No.70/2023 (NCV No.82/2023) may be quashed and set aside and

2. The Case No.70/2023 (NCV No.82/2023) pending before the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan may kindly be dismissed with costs; and

3. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord sent a legal notice dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-1) to the petitioner tenant for eviction of the premises in dispute wherein he demanded Rs. 2,38,2023/- for rent amount due to the respondent-landlord. The respondent also provided the details of his bank account and provided a time period of 30 days for payment of the due rent. Thereafter, on 21.04.2023, the respondent-landlord preferred an eviction application (Annexure- 2) under section 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2001'), on the ground of bonafide necessity, and also demanded arrears of rent without complying with the provisions of the Act of 2001, which mandates that a period of 30 days is to be provided to the petitioner tenant before filing of the eviction application, which was not provided by the respondent.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant filed reply (Annexure-3) to the legal notice sent by the respondent-landlord and therein denied the existence of the rent agreement executed between the respondent and the petitioner and also denied the landlord-tenant relationship.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application (Annexure- 4) stating therein that the eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord is premature, as the respondent filed the eviction application on the ground of arrears of rent, and as per the second proviso of the Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, 30 days time period from the date of service of legal notice ought to be given to the petitioner-tenant for the payment of the arrears of rent, which was not given to the petitioner-tenant. Furthermore, the respondent-landlord did not prefer to file a reply to the application filed by the petitioner-tenant.

5. Thereafter, the learned tribunal vide order dated 04.1.2024 (Annexure-5) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-tenant without considering the material available on record. Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-5), the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure-5) is illegal and contrary to law which deserves to be dismissed, as the finding of the learned Rent Tribunal is perverse that the eviction application has been filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, which does not provide any obligation to serve a legal notice to the petitioner-tenant. He further submits that the eviction application has not been filed on the ground of bonafide necessity whereas it has been filed on the ground of arrears of rent, and this fact has not been considered by the learned Rent Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it was mandatory for the respondent-landlord to provide a period of 30 days from the date of service of legal notice for depositing the arrears of rent. Thus, the eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord is premature.

8. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 for requiremen