Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -tenant challenging judgment dated 07.01.2015 passed by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the Rent Appellate Tribunal') whereby the appeal filed by the respondent -landlord has been allowed and judgment dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal has been reversed.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that a lease agreement was entered between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of suit premise on 12.05.2004 which is residential house on first floor of the building in question owned by the respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 9,500/ -. An application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001(for short 'the Act') for eviction of the petitioner was filed by the respondent on the ground of bonafide necessity, material alteration and nuisance. According to the respondent, he was in bonafide necessity of the rented premise. Affidavits were filed of respondent Shri B.P. Sharma, landlord; Shri Rajesh Sharma and Smt. Archana as PW1, PW2 and PW3 respectively. The petitioner contested the application denying the averments made therein and stating that the respondent was not in a need of the rented premise, as he already had more than four rooms in his possession. The premise in question was constructed by the respondent only for the purpose of tenancy as was evident in the advertisement so published by the respondent. Alleged bonafide necessity of the son of the respondent was not real and was illusory as his son was well settled in Jhansi (MP) for last many years. Affidavits of Shri Gopal Sahni and Panna Singh were filed as DW -1 and DW -2 respectively.
(3.) THE Rent Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues and after examining the evidence adduced by the parties and material on record, Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the application for eviction filed by the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent -landlord preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, which vide judgment dated 07.01.2015 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent -landlord and reversed the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal dismissing the eviction application of the respondent -landlord. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -tenant. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in holding that Shri Gyanendra, son of the respondent will/might live with his parents in future. This finding is recorded ignoring that Shri Gyanendra is working in Jhansi(MP) and subsequently transferred to Lucknow and is well settled with his family there. There is no question of his coming back and stay with his parents. Assumption of the Rent Appellate Tribunal that Gyanendra son of the respondent was working with Reliance Company which has his office at Jaipur and therefore, he can be transferred to Jaipur is wholly baseless. There was no definite evidence to this effect. Findings of the Rent Appellate Tribunal to this effect are perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. The Rent Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent was in possession of entire ground floor and second floor of the house which is having six rooms attached lat -bath and two kitchens and two halls. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Appellate Tribunal has not correctly appreciated statement of PW -2, Rajesh Kumar, brother of the respondent, who has stated that he is living separately and the suit premises are not ancestral property as such no question of Rajesh Kumar living with the respondent in the suit premises arises. Even otherwise, brother does not come in the definition of 'Family'. The very fact that other portion in the suit premise was let out after 2005, when PW -2 Rajesh Kumar had already come to Jaipur after his transfer demonstrate that neither the respondent intended to live together with Rajesh Kumar, nor Rajesh Kumar intends to stay along with the respondent. Necessity of the respondent was neither bonafide nor personal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, in alternate, has submitted that if this Court is inclined to upheld the impugned judgment passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, then reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premise in question.;