- (1.) By judgment and decree dated 8.8.2007 learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff respondent for eviction from the rented premises. Learned Rent Tribunal held that the plaintiff is having a bonafide necessity for getting the premises evicted. An appeal preferred to challenge the judgment and decree aforesaid also came to be rejected by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur by judgment and decree dated 17.8.2010.
(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the appellant defendant that the courts below erred while examining the issue relating to bonafide necessity. It is submitted that as per plaintiff the premises was required for dwelling of Abdul Rashid who himself in his statements stated that in the premises in question, his brother will reside. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is having an alternative accommodation wherein his family members may dwell.
(3.) I have examined the judgments impugned and also the statements of Abdul Rashid. True it is, he stated that his brother will stay in the premises in question but at the same time he also claimed his necessity by stating that his family will reside in the premises in question. The statements given by the witness are required to be read with the context of the matter and not otherwise. In totality of the facts it is quite apparent that the premises is required for dwelling of Abdul Rashid and his family members. So far as the issue relating to alternative accommodation is concerned, needless to state that it is for the landlord to determine that which part of his property shall be appropriate to meet his necessity. In such circumstances I do not find any wrong with the orders passed by the courts below that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;