Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition purporting to be both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran affirming the Judgment dated 18.10.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Baran for eviction of the petitioner - non -applicant -tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') and for a certificate of possession in favour of the respondent -applicant -landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity of the landlord and the tenant having acquired adequate alternate accommodation for his own use.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the tenant, as also the landlord and perused the judgments passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. From the evidence on record referred to by the Tribunals, it is established that the tenant purchased two commercial plots bearing Nos. 15 and 22 in an auction as evident from Ex. P8 and Ex. P11 before the Rent Tribunal, Baran. Subsequently in the evidence of tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Baran it was admitted that constructions on the aforesaid two plots had been made. That the construction made was for residential purpose, as argued by counsel for the tenant is of no event. The plots in issue purchased at an auction by the landlord were admittedly for commercial purposes. If they were used for residence is no defence as admittedly they could, in law, be used for commercial purposes. In these circumstances it is apparent that the tenant occupying the tenanted shop ad -measuring 10 Ã - 15 ft. had acquired adequate accommodation suitable for his requirement within the meaning of section 9(j) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001'). No perversity can be attributed to the findings of the Rent Tribunal as upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal holding the tenant was liable for eviction on this ground. In the circumstances, to my mind, it is not necessary to address the question raised in this petition with regard to the alleged illegality and perversity of the conclusions of the statutory Tribunals on the landlord also having made out a ground of his bona fide and reasonable requirement.
(3.) COUNSEL for the tenant has however submitted that the moot question in the present writ petition, as was before the statutory Tribunals, is as to whether the landlord even had the locus standi and consequently a valid cause of action to file the eviction petition against the tenant. It has been submitted that the premises in dispute were taken on rent in 1974 from Kesarbai who died leaving behind no heirs. Counsel submits that there was no evidence on record before the Rent Tribunal to hold that the applicant Giriraj Kumar Gupta was the landlord or he was the successor to the tenanted property in the ownership of the deceased Kesarbai. It has been submitted that in -fact Kesarbai by a registered gift deed dated 19.5.1982 had gifted the property in dispute to the Porwal Samaj, whereupon she ceased ownership of the property in issue and the Porwal Samaj stepped into her shoes as the landlord. The applicant claiming to the landlord was a rank stranger as in terms of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1882') there was no document on record evidencing the conveyance of the property in issue thereafter by the Porwal Samaj to the applicant Giriraj Kumar Gupta claiming to be the landlord. It has been submitted that there were thus no landlord -tenant relationship between the applicant claiming to be the landlord and the non -applicant - who was tenant of the Pormwal Samaj. At no point of time any rent was paid by the non -applicant to the applicant in his claim as the landlord nor any writing evidenced landlord -tenant relationship between the contesting parties before the Rent Tribunal. It has been submitted that in these circumstances the conclusion of the Rent Tribunal and affirmation thereof by the Appellate Rent Tribunal with regard to the locus of the applicant, as the purported landlord, to lay the eviction petition, are wholly perverse and based on no evidence.;