ORDER :

(Inderjeet Singh, J.)

Since these two writ petitions relates to the one and the same property and are assailing the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal, hence with consent of the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.

2. The petitioner (to be referred as tenant) has filed these writ petitions challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby the appeal No.37/2021 filed on behalf of the tenant against the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II was dismissed and cross Appeal No.40/2021 filed on behalf of the respondents (to be referred as landlord) was allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1975, the shop in dispute was taken on rent by the father of the tenant. The landlord filed eviction application against the tenant in the year 2015 on the ground that the building (disputed premises) is in a dilapidated condition and the same is required for construction and running of a hospital in the memory of their head of the family late Mr. Panna Lal. The tenant filed reply to the eviction application and denied the averments made therein and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal framed following issues:-

^^1- vk;k vthZnkj dks vthZ ds en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s'kqnk ifj"kj ttZj voLFkk esa gksus ls ekuo thou ds fy, vlqjf{kr gks x;k gS] ftlds ejEer ds fy, vthZnkj dks fookfnr ifjlj dh vko';drk gS\

-------------------vthZnkj

2- vk;k vthZnkj dks vthZ dh en la[;k 3 esa of.kZr fdjk;s'kqnk ifj"kj dks vthZnkos esa of.kZrkuqlkj futh- lnHkkfod ,oa ;qfDr;Dr vko';drk gS\

-----------vthZnkj**

4- vuqrks"k**

4. The landlord in support of their eviction application adduced the evidence of PW-1-Dr. Rishi Bhargava, and also submitted the documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.33. The tenant in support of their reply adduced the evidence of DW-1-Jaspal Singh and also produced the documentary evidence Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6, thereafter, the Rent Tribunal finally heard the matter and decided the issue No.1 in favour of the landlord and issue No.2 was decided against the landlord vide its order dated 06.08.2021.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2021, the tenant filed Appeal No.37/2021 and the landlord filed cross Appeal No.40/2021 for quashing of the finding given on issue No.2 by the Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the cross appeal filed on behalf of the landlord vide its order dated 07.09.2022. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal.

6. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal failed to consider the provisions of the law as well as the documentary evidence in this matter. Counsel further submits that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding with regard to issue No.1 without any basis. Counsel further submits that so far as issue No.2 of bona fide need and necessity of the landlord is concerned, the finding recorded thereon is also perverse as the landlord wants to construct the hospital after demolishing the disputed premises which is merely a desire of the landlord and not the bona fide necessity.

7. In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shadi Singh v. Rakha reported in (1992) 3 SCC 55.

8. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the