Order

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-landlord assailing the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Rent Appeal No. 70/2016, titled 'Vinay Agrawal & Ors. Vs. Ramkrishna & Ors.', whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Original Application No. 32/2011, titled 'Ramkrishna & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Agrawal', was set aside.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition on 06.04.2011 against the respondent-tenant under Section 9 (a), (i), and (e) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, on the ground of default in payment of rent, bona fide necessity, and sub-letting while stating that the tenanted premises bearing No. 8/15, situated at Nala Bazar, Ajmer, comprising of a shop on the ground floor, residential accommodation on the first floor, and terrace thereupon, was let out to the predecessor-in-title of the tenant, namely Shri Manohar Halwai. It was further stated that the present rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 800/- per month from February 1999. It was averred that the tenant has never been regular with payment of rent, has committed a default in payment of rent, and claimed arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 97,600/- for 122 months. It was further averred that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Ajmer but has been living in Jaipur on rent and wants to move back from Jaipur to Ajmer and re-settle there, and further to establish his business in Ajmer itself; thus, he has a bona fide necessity of the tenanted premises. It was also averred that the tenant, on the occasion of the Urs festival as well as on various other occasions, has been illegally sub-letting the tenanted premises without prior permission from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction against the tenants and other consequential decree.

3. Upon service of notice upon the tenant, the respondent-tenant filed a reply on 29.06.2011 and denied the averments made in the eviction petition, primarily stating that the petitioners are permanent residents of Jaipur, where they have been residing from the last 40 years in their owned property and are carrying on an established business in Jaipur too; thus, they do not have any bona fide necessity of the tenanted premises. It was further contended on behalf of the respondent that the agreed rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 200/- per month, which had been increased from Rs. 70/- per month in the year 2000, and presently the payable rent is not Rs. 800/- per month as alleged in Para No. 4 of the petition. It was further submitted that the respondent-tenant has timely paid/deposited the entire rent amount in the bank account of the petitioner-landlord, and therefore, neither are any arrears of rent due, nor has the respondent committed any default in payment of rent. The respondent-tenant also averred that he has never sub-let the tenanted premises to anyone, and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the eviction petition.

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

5. In order to support his contentions, the petitioner-landlord examined Rajeev Agrawal (PW-1) and produced various documents including Ex.1 (Notice), Ex.2 (receipt registry), Ex.3 (U.P.C.), Ex. 4 to 8 (rent receipts), Ex.9 & 10 (certificates issued by the Secretary of Jal Vayu Vihar Maintenance Samiti).

6. In rebuttal, the tenant examined himself Vinay Agrawal (DW-1) and Anil Garg (DW-2), and produced as many as 58 documents including Ex. A1 to A9 (photocopy of the rent receipt), Ex. A10 to A13 (Bank Slips), Ex. A14 to A23 (postal receipts), Ex. A24 to A2