PAWAN KUMAR PARNAMI Vs. NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge, by which he has upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, on the ground of bonafide needs of landlord.

(2.) The petition for eviction, on bonafide need under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, was filed in the year 2003. The order of dispossession was passed by the Rent Tribunal on 17.08.2011, which was affirmed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal on 29.11.2014. Learned Single Judge did not interfere on the ground that the findings of fact do not warrant interference, nor there was any such additional grounds pleaded, or material placed, which may require consideration.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the tenant-appellant prays for some reasonable time to vacate the premises. He submits that since the premises are non-residential, it will take some time for him to arrange for alternative shop.