M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the order dated 26th July, 2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur and order dated 11th September, 2013 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal.
(2.) THE respondent -landlord preferred an application for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. The application for eviction was allowed by the Rent Tribunal. It was then challenged by the petitioner by an appeal but was dismissed. The petitioner, present in person, submit that an application for eviction from rented premises was preferred by the respondent - landlord on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. It was alleged that he has no residential house for himself, thus living in the rented premises. For the business also, same reason was given. He was asked about transfer of flat of Housing Board in his name. He had shown ignorance and when confronted to the order dated 25th March, 2009 for the flat, again shown his ignorance about transfer of flat. Thereafter PW - 1 admitted that flat has been transferred by the Housing Board and is in possession of the landlord. In view of above, not only the respondent landlord did not approach the Rent Tribunal with clean hands but he even tried to make incorrect and false statements and despite availability of alternative suitable residential accommodation, the application for eviction was filed. The flat No. 4/750 is in Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur and sufficient to meet the requirement of respondent No. 3 but ignoring the aforesaid and even the contradiction in the statements, the Appellant Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
(3.) IT was admitted by the respondent - landlord that he is residing in the rented premises where no notice has been given to vacate the premises. The said house is consist of four rooms, one kitchen and two toilets, etc. When the respondent -landlord is residing peacefully in the rented premises, it cannot be said to be a case of personal bonafide necessity, however, realizing the anxiety of the landlord, the petitioner had even volunteered to allow construction on the first floor of the rented premises but it was also ignored by the Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal.;