The court emphasized that a landlord’s bona fide necessity for eviction must be upheld if substantiated by evidence, and the scope of review under Article 227 is limited to supervisory jurisdiction, preventing reevaluation of factual findings.

Order :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 20.02.2021 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in eviction petition No.18/2009, titled as 'Marwadi Khatri Panchayat, Ajmer & Others vs. Rakesh & Another' whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Tribunal Act, 2001 was allowed and affirmed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer vide order dated 08.05.2025.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the tenanted premises was let out on 02.03.1972. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 9 (b), (e), (i), (j) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in the year 2009 on the grounds of: reasonable and bona fide necessity, stating that the tenanted premises was built about 100 years ago which the respondent-landlord wants to re-develop, uplift and expand the same in the interest and benefit of the society; acquisition of alternative accommodation by tenant No.2; sub-letting; substantial damage to the property; and illegal & unauthorized encroachment by the petitioner-tenant.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant filed a reply and denied the averments made in the eviction petition. Further, the petitioner also denied all the grounds of eviction pleaded in the eviction petition. Petitioner further stated that the tenanted premises is not 100 years old and there is no need to re-develop the same, and that the respondent-landlord merely wants to use the tenanted premises for commercial purposes i.e. as a marriage hall. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent-landlord is having ample vacant space in their possession and the petitioner also denied other grounds of eviction i.e. acquisition of alternative accommodation, sub-letting, nuisance etc. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

4. The respondent-landlord filed a rejoinder and denied the averments made in the reply and reiterated the pleadings as mentioned in the eviction petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Tribunal framed the following 6 (six) issues:

6. During the course of trial, the respondent-landlord filed affidavit of witnesses, namely Satyanarayan Arora and Om Prakash Arora, and produced documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 20.

7. In rebuttal, the petitioners-tenants filed affidavit of four witnesses, namely Suresh Kumar, Rakesh (petitioner himself), Ravindra (petitioner himself) and Gopal Sahu, and produced documents marked as Ex A-1 to A-48.

8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the respective parties, learned Rent Tribunal, while allowing the eviction petition, decided all the issues in favour of the respondent-landlord. A recovery certificate was also issued in favour of the respondent-landlord vide order dated 20.02.2021.

9. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.02.2021, the petitioners preferred a regular first appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer. Upon hearing both the parties, learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, while deciding the appeal, reversed the findings of Issue Nos. 2 (availability of alternative accommodation), 3 (sub-letting), and 4 (substantial damage/nuisance) against the respondent- landlord but upheld the finding of the learned Rent Tribunal on Issue No.1 regarding bona fide necessity, and d