SHYAM SUNDER BOHRA Vs. ANKIT SETH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing impugned judgment Annex.-4 dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No. 85/2003, so also, the judgment dated 10.7.2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Appeal No. 44/2011 filed by respondent No. I applicant under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. was filed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara to bring subsequent facts on record with regard to having alternate premises during the pendency of the present litigation which is said to be filed on the ground of bona-fide necessity but the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal without deciding the said application decided the appeal which is totally illegal. On this ground, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of bona fide necessity is now not existing for which the eviction application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, therefore, both the orders impugned may be quashed.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is guilty of making concealment of fact that in the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. subsequent facts with regard to fulfilment of the bona fide necessity was brought to the notice of the Court and prayed for taking certain documents on record; but, in fact, on the same ground an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner in which the same prayer was made but, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the said application was withdrawn by the petitioner. However, this fact was not disclosed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same plea.