PHOOL CHAND Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL BARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 1-11-2012 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran (hereinafter the 'Appellate Tribunal') allowing an appeal filed by respondent No.3 landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') against the petitioner tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') and holding that the landlord was entitled to a certificate of possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of the tenant being in default with reference to Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter Rs. 2001 Act') and on the ground that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a suitable premises adequate for his requirement covered under section 9(j) of the 2001 Act.

(2.) The facts of the case that the tenant was in use and occupation of the premises situate in Rajpura ward, near Narsingh Temple, Baran belonging to the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. The landlord filed a petition (22/2010) on 27-3-2010 before the Rent Tribunal, Baran (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') for revision of rent under Section 6 of the 2001 Act and for eviction of the tenant under Section 9 thereof inter alia on the grounds of default, material alteration, bonafide and reasonable need to repair the premises which were in a dilapidated condition and on the ground of tenant having acquired vacant possession of suitable premises in Uttam colony Baran, adequate for his requirement. On notices being issued on the petition, reply thereto was filed and the eviction petition was contested. The tenancy was admitted but the grounds agitated by the landlord for eviction under the provisions of Section 9 of the 2001 Act denied. Of chief relevance to this petition was the denial that the tenant had vacant possession of premises adequate to his requirement. The Rent Tribunal, Baran framed 8 issues on the pleadings of parties. Evidences were led before the Tribunal by the two parties.

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the evidences as laid proceeded to find that the appeal of the landlord was liable to succeed on the ground of the tenant having defaulted in payment of rent for a period of four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition with reference to 9(a) of the 2001 Act and also on the ground that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for his requirement 9(f) of the 2001 Act. The appeal filed by the landlord vide order dated 1-11-2012 was allowed and a certificate of possession issued by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence this petition.