JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 06.10.2016, passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota, in Rent Appeal No. 75/2015, whereby the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant, quashed and set aside the judgment dated 22.09.2015, passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Kota, in Rent Application No. 299/2005 (810/2014), whereby, the application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2001') by the petitioner-landlord was allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, against the respondent-tenant, seeking eviction from the disputed shop on the ground of default, bonafide requirement, availability of alternative premises, sub-letting, nuisance and material alteration. It was contended that the premises were bonafidely required as the petitioner had two sons, namely Raghuraj Singh and Raghunandan Singh, who intended to start a business of auto parts and computer hardware from the disputed shops.

3. The respondent-tenant filed a reply therein and denied the averments of the eviction petition inter alia stating that he had been the tenant of the disputed property since 16.07.1986, and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,200/- at the time of filing of the suit. It was further contended that on the ground of alleged bonafide requirement, the petitioner had already got the basement vacated from the respondent, where his son Raghuraj Singh was operating an STD/PCO booth. Further, in lieu of the basement, the respondent was let out a room situated on the northern side of the disputed shop. With regard to the necessity of other son namely Ragunandan Singh, it was submitted that he was still pursuing his studies. Thus, according to the respondent, the alleged requirement was neither bonafide nor reasonable.

4. The learned Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 22.09.2015, allowed the eviction petition and passed eviction certificate on the ground of bonafide necessity of Raghuraj Singh. However, the issues relating to default, sub-letting, material alteration, nuisance and availability of alternative premises were decided against the petitioner-landlord.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.09.2015, the respondent-tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 06.10.2016 and consequently, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.10.2016, the petitioner-landlord preferred the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2016, is patently illegal and arbitrary; thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was contended that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal committed a serious illegality while reversing the finding on the issue of bonafide necessity by observing that the petitioner had sold three shops to one Pramod Agarwal prior to filing of the suit, whereas the said shops were sold in the year 2003 on occasion of marriage of his daughter. Later, in 2005, the need arose on account of the fact that the petitioner's son Raghuraj Singh was in requirement of operating a business of hardware and auto parts in the disputed shop.

7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that no cross-examination was conducted by the respondent regarding the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter and the consequent sale of shops. Moreover, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal completely misread the evidence with the regard to the fact of STD/PCO being operated by the son of petitioner whereas the same was being operated by his daughter in law Smt. Nihal Kanwar in a 3ft. x 10ft. shop.

7.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly a suit was file