PRATAP SINGH HADA Vs. RAJKUMAR JHAMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the judgment dtd. 6/10/2016, passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota, in Rent Appeal No. 75/2015, whereby the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant, quashed and set aside the judgment dtd. 22/9/2015, passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Kota, in Rent Application No. 299/2005 (810/2014), whereby, the application filed under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2001') by the petitioner-landlord was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Sec. 9 of the Act of 2001, against the respondent-tenant, seeking eviction from the disputed shop on the ground of default, bonafide requirement, availability of alternative premises, sub-letting, nuisance and material alteration. It was contended that the premises were bonafidely required as the petitioner had two sons, namely Raghuraj Singh and Raghunandan Singh, who intended to start a business of auto parts and computer hardware from the disputed shops.

(3.) The respondent-tenant filed a reply therein and denied the averments of the eviction petition inter alia stating that he had been the tenant of the disputed property since 16/7/1986, and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.3,200.00 at the time of filing of the suit. It was further contended that on the ground of alleged bonafide requirement, the petitioner had already got the basement vacated from the respondent, where his son Raghuraj Singh was operating an STD/PCO booth. Further, in lieu of the basement, the respondent was let out a room situated on the northern side of the disputed shop. With regard to the necessity of other son namely Ragunandan Singh, it was submitted that he was still pursuing his studies. Thus, according to the respondent, the alleged requirement was neither bonafide nor reasonable.