- (1.) This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1040/2007. Succinctly, facts of the case are that while adjudicating an application preferred under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001'), the Rent Tribunal on basis of the pleadings framed following issues:- 1. Whether a western opening shop measuring 8 x 17 feet at shopping complex No.6, Swami Dayanand Marg, Sriganganagar is rented to non-applicant Ram Prakash son of Aaidan since 11.5.1989 with a rent of Rs.1850/- in which he is working in the name of 'Vishal Jewelers'? 2.Whether the applicant desires to start the business of boutique and beauty parlour at the rented premises and she is having reasonable and bonafide necessity of the rented premises? 3.Whether partial eviction from the rented premises measuring 8 x 17 feet is not possible? 4.Whether revised rent of the rented premises can be determined as Rs.4208/- as per Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act? 5.Whether the rented premises was taken on rent for the affairs of the firm 'Vishal Jewelers' and 'Vishal Jewelers' being not impleaded as party, the application deserves to be rejected? 6.Whether during the course of tenancy the rent was enhanced time to time and, therefore, as per Section 6 the applicant is not entitled for revision of rent? 7.Whether the applicant started the business earlier in the name of Shashi Beauty Parlour and closed that being failed to run? 8.Whether the family of the applicant has started business in the name of Bajitpuria Jewelers near the rented premises and, therefore, applicant applicant is not in need of the shop rented? 9.Whether the applicant is having two constructed shops at 23, Shankar Colony, Sriganganagar and, therefore, she is not in need of rented premises? 10.Whether as a consequent to eviction of the rented premises the non-applicant shall suffer more comparative hardship and inconvenience than to the applicant as his business shall be finished and he will loose his credibility? 11.Whether a sum of Rs.16,266/- has been paid by the nonapplicant twice and if so he is entitled to get that amount adjusted? 12.Relief?
(2.) The Rent Tribunal by the judgment dated 19.5.2006 decided the issues No.1 and 5 in favour of the respondentapplicant (landlord) and against the appellant nonapplicant (tenant). The issue No.2 was decided against the respondent-applicant and in favour of the appellant nonapplicant.
(3.) The issues No.7, 8 and 9 were decided in favour of the appellant non-applicant and against the respondentapplicant.;