RADHA RAMAN SON OF SUGAN CHAND, BY Vs. PADAM CHAND SON OF HARISH CHAND, BY CASTE VAISHY, RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD, BAZARIYA, BHARATPUR, IN FRONT OF MURLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-tenant assailing judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short 'the Appellate Rent Tribunal') in Appeal No.25/2007, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed and judgment dated 05.10.2007 passed by Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur(for short 'the Rent Tribunal'), in Rent Application No. 41/2005 was affirmed. Application filed by the landlord-Respondent under Sec. 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant was allowed by learned Rent Tribunal.

(2.) On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing material on record, I find that the Rent Tribunal has decided sole issue of personal bona fide necessity in favour of the respondent-landlord, which finding has been affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal while dismissing appeal of the petitioner. So, there is current findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issue of personal bona fide necessity in favour of the respondent-landlord. There is no error or illegality in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. However, at this stage, learned counsel for tenant-petitioner made an alternative prayer and submitted that petitioner is tenant in the rented premise in question since 1970 i.e. for last about 46 years, therefore, he may be granted reasonable time period to make alternative arrangement because it is very difficult to take a premise on rent.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-landlord although opposed the writ petition but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant time up to 31.10.2018 to tenant-petitioner to handover peaceful vacant possession of rented premise to landlord-respondent on following conditions:-