MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Shabbir @ Bablu and Ajeej against the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in appeal filed by the petitioners, whereby it upheld the judgement of the Rent Tribunal dated 26.11.2015 with the prayer that the impugned orders be set aside and the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 may be dismissed.
(2.) Facts of the case are that the applicant-landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 against the father of the petitioners with the averments that there is a house situated at 25 Jaims Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur and same was let out to non-applicant no. 1 and from 01.05.2007 to 31.01.2008 rent was not paid and north east side of the property has been given by the non-applicant no.1 to the non-applicant 2 in sub-tenancy. It was further mentioned that the non-applicant no.1 has denied the title of the applicant and there is a bona fide necessity of the premises for the residence of this sons Faruk and Sarfuddin. The applicant-landlord also took the ground of nuisance and it was requested to pass a decree of possession in favour of the applicant. The non-applicant no.1 filed reply to the application in which the fact that the applicant and the non-applicant no. 1 are close relatives was admitted. The non-applicant no.2 filed separate reply in which it was admitted that the plot no.25 was purchased by the father of the applicant and no-applicant no.2 jointly and the non-applicant no.2 is owner of the half share in the property and accordingly he is in the possession in the half share. It was further mentioned that the applicant never let out the premises to the non-applicant no.1 and there is collusion of the applicant and non-applicant no.1. Applicant moved an application for amendment of the pleadings and same was allowed by learned Rent Tribunal and the applicant filed amended rent application and during pendency of the rent application, the non-applicant no.2 expired and the petitioners as well as other legal heirs of the non-applicant no.2 were taken on record. The petitioners filed reply to the amended application in which it was mentioned that the applicant is brother-in-law of the non-applicant no.1 and they are having collusion. Father of the petitioners was owner of the half share of the property in dispute and therefore it is requested to dismiss the application filed by the applicant.
(3.) The applicant appeared in evidence as PW/1 and also produced the evidence of three other witnesses and also produce 66 documentary evidence in support of his case. The non-applicant no.1 appeared in evidence as DW/1 and produced 31 documents in support of his case. The non-applicant no.2 appeared as witness and also produced the evidence of two other witnesses and produced 14 documentary evidence.;