VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and certificate dated 26. 10. 2006 Annex.-3 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur as well as order dated 28. 03. 2008 Annex.-4 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur.
(2.) THE facts of the case set out in the writ petition indicate that an application for eviction under Section 3, 6 and 9 (1) B, C, E, G and I, read with Section 10 (i) (b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed by the petitioner in which it was categorically stated that the premises situated at 34, Sardar Club Scheme, Jodhpur was let out by respondent No. 3 (applicant before the Tribunal) and the said premises was let out for residential purpose and rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ -. As per applicant (respondent No. 3 herein), the premises was give for residential purpose but, later on, it was utilized for the commercial purpose, therefore, on the basis of change of use, eviction decree was sought for. The other grounds were also taken including the ground of bona fide necessity because applicant was superannuated from the post of Chief Engineer and, later on, from the post of Technical Member with effect from 30. 04. 1996 when he was residing at Jaipur. As per the grounds taken by the applicant before the Rent Tribunal he was to be shifted from Jaipur to Jodhpur permanently to live with his family. Although the request was made to the tenant (petitioner herein) but he has not evicted the premises while resorting to one or the other reasons, therefore, in the compelling circumstances while taking various ground including the ground of change of use, the application was filed by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner tenant. In the ground, a specific plea was agitated by the applicant before the Rent Tribunal that in fact the premises was taken for residential purpose, therefore, Chapter 2 and 3 of the Act of 2001 are not applicable in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for eviction decree without proving any ground and he is entitled for the eviction decree because the premises was given for residential purpose. Further, it is specifically prayed in the grounds of the application that if the Court comes to the conclusion that Chapter 2 and 3 are applicable in the present controversy upon the ground that after taking the premises on rent for residential purpose it was used for commercial purpose, then, the petitioner is entitled for eviction decree upon the grounds taken in the application. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Rent Tribunal and, accordingly, the petitioner filed reply to the application. It was specifically refuted that premises was not taken for residential purpose, in fact, the premises was taken for commercial purpose. In para 5 of the reply, it was stated by the petitioner that the contention of the applicant is totally false that premises din question was taken for residential purpose.
(3.) THE Rent Tribunal finally adjudicated the matter after framing the issues on the ground that contention of the applicant is not acceptable that the premises was let out for residential purpose and while holding that the premises in question was, in fact, let out for commercial purpose, therefore, Chapter 2 and 3 of the Act are applicable as per Section 3 of the Act of 2001 and while considering the grounds taken for eviction, that eviction decree was passed against the respondent. Against the said judgment, appeal was preferred by the petitioner in which various grounds were taken against the adjudication made by the Rent Tribunal and, out of those grounds, one was that the learned Tribunal has committed error while holding that initially premises was let out for commercial purpose. As per the petitioner, the finding of the Rent Tribunal was erroneous on the ground that there was admission in the application filed by respondent No. 3 before the Rent Tribunal that the premises in question was let out for residential purpose. When admission with regard to the aforesaid fact was there in the application, then, the Rent Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect of the matter but the Rent Tribunal erroneously adjudicated the matter while holding that Chapter 2 and 3 of the Act of 2001 are applicable in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. The Rent Appellate Tribunal while considering all the grounds advanced by the petitioner, however, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Tribunal in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner is challenging both these orders mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have committed error while holding that the premises in question was let out for commercial purpose, therefore, Chapter 2 and 3 of the Act of 2001 are applicable in accordance with Section 3 and while doing so, the Courts below completely ignored the admission of respondent No. 3 made before the Rent Tribunal in the application filed by him. ;