MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Roop Lal Kanhaiyalal Saraf against the judgement dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, which has while reversing the judgment of the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer dated 9.3.2010 allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord and directed the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the landlord.
(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 6 and 9 of the Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenants on the ground of bona fide necessity. Petitioners were tenant of the respondent-landlord in the premises situated at Kadka Chauk, Ajmer bearing property no.13/347 at ground floor facing east at the rent of Rs.200 per month. The rent was Rs.43 in the year 1948. The rent was therefore liable to be revised as per Section 6 of the Act and increased to Rs.909 per month from 1.4.2003. It was further contended by the applicant-landlord that the tenants without his permission has parted with one of the part of the shop to M/s. Mahaveer Saree Centre whereupon business of sarees is being carried out. The property in dispute is in densely populated area where-from appropriate transportation is available. The landlord wants to open the office of Chartered Accountant. The landlord presently was earning his livelihood by private service at Baroda and now wants to open his own office of Chartered Accountant at Ajmer. The affidavits of Kuber Dutt and Kanth Dutt were submitted in support thereof.
(3.) The contents of the application were denied by the petitioners, who contended that increased rent as per the formula would not come to Rs.909 per month. The tenants were ready and willing to revise the rent as per the provisions of Rent Control Act. The landlord also filed one more suit, which was pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (SD) No.3, Ajmer, which he did not press and got the same dismissed on 10.12.2003. With respect to the same shop, the present suit was therefore not maintainable being barred by the principles of res judicata. The present firm is on rent of Rs.200 per month since 1983. Entire premises was given on rent after 1948 and different tenancies were entered of different premises. There is actually no need for the landlord to open office. The landlord earlier used to be in service at Baroda and thereafter he opened his own office at Baroda and permanently settled there. It is contended that landlord was already having a big premises in Ghee Mandi, Ajmer situated at a very short distance from the disputed premises, which is ten times bigger than the present property. It is contended that in the disputed premises on first floor and third floor, Manak Chand is tenant under separate tenancy and paying rent at the rate of Rs.660 per month and that on that premises, the business of M/s. Mahaveer Saree was being carried out. The landlord has already filed a suit for getting the said premises vacated. In the nearby, there is no office of any Advocate or Chartered Accountant. The present premises was not suited for Chartered Accountant. The landlord has settled for last 25 years at Baroda and his only intention is to get the rent increased to the tune of Rs.3,000 per month. The defendant-tenant produced affidavit of Jyoti Prakash, Chander Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Moti Lal etc. in support of his case.;