- (1.) BY judgment dated 24.2.2010 learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the judgment dated 3.11.2007 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No.99/2006. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred an Original Application before Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur with assertion that respondent is tenant at the shop situated at Sojati Gate, Jodhpur and is making making payment of rent in a tune of Rs.1155/- per month. The rented premises is required being having reasonable and bonafide necessity as the petitioner desires to have an office for starting property dealing business. It was further stated that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit before the competent court to get his tenant in other shop adjacent to the shop in question evicted and after having both the shops vacant he will establish an office by removing partition wall existing in between the two shops. The petitioner also came forward with reasonable and bonafide necessity with assertion that his son is a Cardiac Surgeon and his daughter-in-law is having Masters Degree in Gynecology and both are acquiring further education at Bangalore. They want to go for further education in their specialities at America and United Kingdom. To meet the expenses he want to earn money by involving himself in the business of sale and purchase of immovable property. In written, the tenant accepted tenancy but denied bonafide necessity of the landlord as claimed for. As per the tenant, the landlord was having no knowledge of the property dealing business and he desires only to get rented premises vacant. On basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed two issues as follows:- 1.Whether the applicant is having any reasonable and bonafide necessity for the disputed premises for his own business? 2.Relief?
(3.) THE Tribunal after examining the entire evidence rejected the application by arriving at the conclusion that the applicant is having no bonafide necessity of the rented premises. In appeal, the applicant appellant urged that the Tribunal patently erred by not appreciating the evidence available on record relating to bonafide need of the rented premises by the petitioner to run his own business. The Appellate Tribunal after reappreciating the evidence affirmed the finding given by the Tribunal and also arrived at the conclusion that the applicant is having alternative accommodation where he can start his business.;