- (1.) The petitioner tenant has filed this writ petition against the order dated 20th August, 2010 (Annex.7) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur; in Application No. 628/2006 (Jagjeet Kaur Vs. Shailendra Prasad) whereby the same was allowed and also the order dated 5.4.2012 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 181/2010 (Shailendra Kumar Vs. Jagjeet Kaur) which had been dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid orders passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur as well as the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The brief facts, for the purpose of adjudication of the present controversy, are that on 18.9.1989, a rent agreement was entered into between Smt. Lajwanti wife of Shei Ajeet Singh and the mother-in-law of respondent No.3 wherein it was agreed that the petitioner would be a tenant in one of the shops situated in south-west corner of the property. Subsequently, on the death of Sardar Ajeet Singh division of the said property took place and Sardar Harbhajan Singh, husband of respondent No.3 who was one of the sons of Sardar Ajeet Singh got his share in the property, the portion in which the petitioner was running his shop as a tenant. Later on in the year 1996, Sardar Harbhajan Singh also died leaving behind, respondent No.3, and a daughter. After the marriage of the daughter, respondent No.3 had been living alone in her portion of the property, since the year 1996. The petitioner had issued a notice to the respondent on 26.8.2004 stating that the receipt of rent be given to him or the bank account number may be provided so that the petitioner can deposit the rent amount in the bank. In response to the said notice on 10.9.2004, the respondent had informed that since there is a need for more space, the petitioner should vacate the premises. Subsequently on 5.7.2005, respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 6 and 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide necessity. The matter then proceeded and both sides had produced evidence. On conclusion of the proceedings on 20.8.2010, the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent No.3 and ordered that the land lord shall be entitled for vacant possession of the suit premises within six months. Further, that the land lord shall be entitled to the revised rent of the suit premises since 5.7.2005.
(3.) Being aggrieved of the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, primarily on the ground that the land lord does not have any bona fide necessity of the suit premises. It was also averred in the appeal that as there was no new circumstances after a period of 8 years which led to initiation of action for eviction of the suit premises by respondent No.3. The learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur however dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the space in which the respondent No.3 is residing, is not sufficient for her and that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal on 28.8.2010 and the same was affirmed. Hence this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned orders passed by both the tribunals below.;