- (1.)Instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal (Rent Control) No. 134 of 2007 whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirmed the judgment and certificate of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal and Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bhilwara dated 25.9.2007 in Case No. 292/2004, by which, certificate for eviction from the premises in question was passed. Brief facts of the case are that the petition took shop No. 38 situated in Azad Market, Bhilwara on rent from the respondent on 1.8.1979 at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month. The respondent landlord filed petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara seeking eviction from the property in question on the ground of material alteration and damage of the rented premises, nuisance and bona fide necessity for his daughter-in-law. After filing reply by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal rendered judgment on 25.9.2007 and issued certificate of eviction in favour of the landlord respondent for eviction on the ground that requirement of rented premises for the purpose of starting a coaching center-cum-computer class for daughter-in-law of the landlord is bona fide necessity and further held that the petitioner tenant is in possession of alternative place of business.
(2.)Against the judgment dated 25.9.2007, the petitioner tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal but the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the said appeal vide its judgment dated 1.11.2011 even if taking clear note of inconsistency in the testimony of respondent landlord and his daughter-in-law with respect to rented premises.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of both the judgments impugned submits that the Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate the crucial evidentiary aspect, as also, failed to ascertain the contours of Section 9(1) of the Act of 2001. With regard to the ground of bona fide necessity, it is submitted that this plea can be taken by the landlord for the use of occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have failed to examine the aforesaid question in the light of judicial pronouncements.