ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal (for short "ART"), Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No. 103/2013 titled as 'Chhoti Devi v. Poonam Chand Bhati', whereby the learned ART reversed the finding qua bonafide necessity arrived at by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in the Original Petition No. 1006/2006 vide order dated 12.07.2013 and allowed the eviction petition filed under Section 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (for short "RRCA") in favour of the present respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner-tenant in the year 1975. The petitioner-tenant was regularly paying the rent amount, but without any rhyme and reason, a legal notice dated 01.04.2005 was given by late Smt. Chhoti Devi (the landlord) through her counsel for default in rent, for non using of rented premise, for bonafide necessity of premise and on other grounds. Thereafter late Smt. Chhoti Devi filed a petition before Rent Tribunal under sections 6 and 9 of RRCA on various grounds. The petitioner-tenant denied all the averments made by late Smt. Chhoti Devi and the Rent Tribunal framed the following issues:-

^^1- vk;k izR;FkhZ us fnukad 01-04-2004 ls vkxs dk fdk;k 550@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls izR;FkhZ dks vnk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pkj ls Hkh vf/kd ekg dk O;frdze fd;k gS\

2- vk;k izkFkhZ;k dks iz'uxr ifjlj dh Lo;a ds iksrs ds dkjksckj ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr o lnHkkoh vko';drk gS\

3- vk;k izR;FkhZ us bl ifjlj dk mi;ksx ftl iz;kstu ds fy;s mls fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k Fkk] mlds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr dkj.kksa ds fcuk vthZ dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ 6 ekg ls Hkh vf/kd fujUrj dky vof/k ds fy;s ugha fd;k\

4- vk;k vthZnkj] izR;FkhZ ls fnukad 01-04-2004 ls vkxs dh cdk;k fdjk;s dh jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\

5- vk;k izR;FkhZ us vius vko';drk ds fy;s IykV u- 38 y{eh uxj] gVokMk jksM+] lksMkyk esa Ik;kZIr mi;qDr ifjlj cuok fy;k gS\

6- vk;k vthZnkj oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k iqujh{k.k ds }kjk ifjfu/kkZfjr djkus dh vf/kdkjh gS\

7- vuqrks"k\^^

The Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 12.07.2013, decided the issue nos. 1-5 in favour of the petitioner-tenant and against the respondent-tenant. Qua issue number 6, the Rent Tribunal ordered increment of rent. Aggrieved against the order dated 12.07.2013, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the ART, who vide impugned order dated 30.01.2016, reversed the finding of the Rent Tribunal only qua bonafide necessity and ordered eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the property in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 30.01.2016, primarily, on the following grounds:-

3.1 It is contended that the ART reversed the finding arrived at by Rent Tribunal based on immaterial observations and without properly appreciating the correct findings given by the Rent Tribunal. Further, the conclusion about the vacant shop, lying adjacent to the shop in question, being unusable was also erroneous and never established by evidence.

3.2 It is further contended that the ART placed reliance on judgments that were on entirely different facts and circumstances and which had no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3.3 It is further contended that the ART came to the erroneous conclusion that Smt. Chhoti Devi had chosen the shop in question for Lokesh, without appreciating the fact that Smt. Chhoti Devi was never produced as a witness.

3.4 It is further contended that ART did not consider that the petitioner-tenant has been working and living on the rented premise in question since 1975; th