LOHRA, J. - (1.) APPALLED by the impugned verdict of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd of July 2013, the appellants have preferred this intra -court appeal. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants, thereby affirming judgments of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, 'Appellate Tribunal') as well as learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), and consequential issuance of certificate for eviction from the premises against the appellants by both the Tribunals below.
(2.) THE facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that respondent No.1 & 2 laid a petition for eviction as well as for revision of rent under Section 9 & 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (for short, 'Act of 2001') against the appellants precisely on three grounds, viz., default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity and denial of title. In the petition for eviction, it was, inter -alia, averred by the respondents that premises in question was purchased by them by a registered sale -deed dated 28th of August 1969 from their predecessor in title viz., Mohanlal, Indra Raj, and Radhey Shyam, sons of Kishan Narayan, and at the time of purchase of premises Nisar Ahmed Chadhwa s/o Zahur Ahmed was a tenant in the said premises. After death of Nisar Ahmed, the appellants as legal representatives are in occupation of the premises and have become tenant by inheritance. In the petition for eviction, the respondents have also referred to a suit for pre -emption filed at the behest of Smt. Khatiza w/o Naseer Ahmed against the respondents, which was instituted in the year 1977 and was ultimately decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24th of May 1979. Being disdained by the said verdict of the learned trial Court, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, which was subsequently transferred to Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur. The appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 15th of March 1991 upset the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of appellant Khatiza. The judgment of the first appellate Court was further assailed by Smt. Khatiza before this Court by preferring a second appeal bearing S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.41 of 1992 and the said appeal is pending. For substantiating the grounds of eviction, the respondents have pleaded in the petition for eviction that after purchasing the premises from their predecessor in title, despite information and demand of rent, the appellants have neither paid, nor tendered the due rent of the premises. The requisite information about sale of the premises was also divulged to the appellants by the seller of the property and factum of sale of the premises is also within the knowledge of the appellants on the anvil of the fact that suit for pre -emption was instituted by Smt. Khatiza by arraying respondents as parties after a lapse of eight years from the date of purchase of the premises by the respondents. The respondents have specifically averred in the petition for eviction that since purchase of the premises by the respondents, the appellants have not paid the due rent, and the requisite rent has also not been deposited in the bank account of the respondents despite furnishing them requisite information about the particulars of bank accounts of the respondents. For substantiating the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, the respondents have pleaded in their petition that they are involved in business of printing and dyeing of clothes and in want of requisite accommodation they are unable to carry out their said business. With these averments, the respondents have stated in the petition that for running their business they are in need of the premises and a decree for eviction is required to be passed against the appellants on the ground of their reasonable and bonafide necessity. With a view to authenticate the third ground of eviction, i.e. denial of title, the respondents have specifically pleaded in the petition for eviction that while responding to their notice on 13rd of February 2004 the appellants have denied their title. For claiming the relief of revision in the rent, the respondents in the petition have averred that exact date of commencement of tenancy is not known to them, but taking into account rigor of Section 6 of the Act of 2001, they are entitled for rent at the rate of Rs.340/ - per month from the appellants.
(3.) THE petition for eviction and revision of rent was contested by the appellants. In the return, the appellants have raised a preliminary objection that petition is not maintainable because the respondents are not their landlord and in fact they are the owners of the premises. As per the assertion of the appellants, the original owner of the property was Smt. Khatiza w/o Nisar Ahmed and after death of Smt. Khatiza, her son Jabar Ahmed became its owner and on his death appellants are in occupation of the premises as its owners. In the second preliminary objection, the appellants have laid emphasis on civil suit filed by Smt. Khatiza for pre -emption against the respondents, which according to them was decreed on 28th of May 1979 and subsequently reversed in appeal by judgment and decree dated 15th of March 1991 and the said judgment and decree is subject matter of second appeal pending before this Court.;