Bona-fide necessity for eviction is evaluated at the time of the petition's filing, and subsequent evidence cannot alter the landlord's established need.

ORDER :

1. The writ petition in hands lays challenge to the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’), whereby the tenant – petitioners’ application dated 05.02.2025 filed under section 21(3) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’) has been dismissed.

2. The facts germane are, that the rent petition filed by the respondent – landlord was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 09.02.2023, whereagainst the petitioners had preferred an appeal (Rent Appeal No.03/2023), which is pending consideration before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioners moved the subject application under section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 and prayed that the respondent – landlord be directed to produce bank statement and Income Tax return while also praying that son of the respondent – landlord be recalled in the witness box, which application has been dismissed by the order impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rent petition was filed by the respondent – landlord for bona-fide need and necessity of his son, who was allegedly unemployed. He argued that during the pendency of the litigation, son of the respondent purchased a property, in which he can very well continue his business and therefore, the application dated 05.02.2025, which was filed for summoning the bank statement and Income Tax return was required to be allowed, so that it could be ascertained as to whether son of the respondent was still unemployed. He argued that having purchased the property worth more than Rs. 20 Lakhs, the son of the landlord was financially well off and he did not require the demised premises.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Concededly, the rent petition was filed by the respondent for bona-fide necessity of his son. A perusal of the reply/written statement, which the petitioners have filed particularly Para nos. 11 and 12 thereof clearly shows that they had neither asserted anything about purchase of the property, as alleged in the application dated 05.02.2025 nor had they claimed that he was having alternative place to carry on business.

7. According to this Court, the bona-fide necessity/requirement of son of the respondent is to be seen as on the date of filing the eviction petition under section 9 of the Act of 2001. During the pendency of the rent petition, in case, son of the respondent has purportedly purchased some property, the same cannot be taken into account. That apart, in absence of any pleadings to this effect, the application (dated 05.02.2025) filed by the petitioners could not have been allowed and the same has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners can neither shift their burden to the landlord nor can they elicit/gather evidence from the possession of the landlord.

8. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

9. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.