RASHEED MOHAMMED QURESHI Vs. ANIL DHAMELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dtd. 23/7/2019, passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 113/2017, whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Tribunal") while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents- tenants, consequently, quashed and set aside the order dtd. 3/6/2017, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur), in Application No.369/2014, wherein the learned Rent Tribunal had allowed the eviction application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001").

(2.) The brief facts, as pleaded, are that the petitioner-landlord instituted an application under Sec. 9 of the Act of 2001, inter alia contending that the shop in dispute had been let out to the respondents-tenants by the petitioner's father on 12/9/1997 at a monthly rent of Rs.600.00 excluding electricity charges. It was averred that Shafi Mohammed and his wife, Smt. Shakko Begam, had expired some time ago. Upon their demise, when the petitioner demanded payment of rent from the respondents, the same was refused. Consequently, a legal notice dtd. 20/3/2014 was issued to the respondents intimating the petitioner's bank account details and calling upon them to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.34,800.00. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondents deposited the rent amount.

(3.) The petitioner-landlord further submitted that he has been carrying on the business of a Photo Colour Lab since 5/11/2001 from a rented premises situated at Raisar Plaza. He also stated that with effect from 7/5/2013, he had taken another shop on rent from one Inder Singh Verma, bearing Shop No. 1668, Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Jaipur, wherein he conducts the business of album making. It was specifically pleaded that both the aforesaid premises are tenanted accommodations and are not owned by the petitioner-landlord.