NIRMAJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order and judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal (District Judge), Hanumangarh vide which the appeal against the order and judgment dated 28.08.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal (Civil Judge), Hanumangarh was rejected.
(2.) The respondents-applicants/landlords filed an application under Section 9 (A and I) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for ejectment, recovery of rent and possession before the Rent Tribunal, Hanumangarh on 17.10.2012 against the petitioners tenants regarding the shop in question on the ground of default as well as personal and bona fide necessity. Both the issues have been decided against the petitioners-tenants. A concurrent finding has been recorded by the courts below on the point of petitioner being defaulter in the payment of rent for more than 28 months i.e. after service of the notice of 30 days. Hence, they committed default in paying the rent to the tune of Rs. 61,664.21. The issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the respondent landlord and it was held that the respondent has reasonable and bona fide requirement of the shop in dispute for his business.
(3.) While praying for setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that another shop of the respondent landlord which was rented out to Kamal Matching Centre has since been vacated and therefore, the same was now sufficient for the respondent landlord to carry on his business from the said shop. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. The bona fide requirement is to be seen on the date of the application. The Apex Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Sh. Pradeep Srivastava reported in AIR 2001 SC 803 after taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the cases of Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram reported in AIR 1992 SC 700 , Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal reported in (1997) 3 SCR 508 and Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders reported in (1975) 3 SCR 958 held that the date of application for eviction which is crucial, reiterated the principle as under: "The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused.";