JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1-tenant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the impugned orders dated 5th June, 2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer and dated 21st March, 2005 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (Annexures 1 and 2 ). The Rent Tribunal passed a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in respect of the rented shop on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity and the Appellate Tribunal maintained the same. The plaintiff-landlord Rajendra Prasad, respondent No. 1 herein, filed an application under Sections 9 and 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') for grant of decree of eviction in respect of rented shop on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity as well as subletting of the rented shop by the defendants No. 1 and 2 to the respondents No. 3 and 4, and for revision of the monthly rent. It was averred in the application that late Dr. S. N. Dubey was original tenant in the rented premise, who died about 20-25 years ago and, after his death, his son Kamal Dubey, the defendants No. 1, and his wife Smt. Gomti Devi, the defendant No. 2, became statutory tenants in the same; the defendant No. 1 Kamal Dubey is a Government servant and is serving in the treasury for the last 20-22 years and the defendant No. 2 is a house wife; the defendants No. 1 and 2 have sub-let the said premise without any written permission of the plaintiff, to the defendants No. 3 and 4. It was further averred that two sons of the applicant, namely, Ranjan Sharma and Gunjan Sharma, aged about 24 and 21 years respectively, have passed their first year examination and they want to start their business of plastic, molding, sanitary and pipe fittings in the rented premise. The applicant's both sons have completed their studies; they have no business premise for doing their business; they have got the experience of the business at Delhi; they have sufficient funds to start their business, therefore, there is a reasonable and bona-fide need of the the disputed premise to them to start their business, hence a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants may be passed. It was averred in the application that the disputed premise was rented out in 1964 at the monthly rent of Rs. 35/- and the same is liable to be revised under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act. In support of the application, the applicant filed his affidavit and the affidavits of his son Ranjan Sharma and, produced documentary evidence Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-6.
(3.) THE defendants filed their reply/written statement and contested the application of the plaintiff pleading therein that the applicant has no necessity of the rented premise reasonably and bona-fide. THE plaintiff has ten other shops and some of them are in his possession where his sons may start their business. THE defendant No. 2, after the death of her husband, is running a business in the rented premise with the help of one servant and grandson. Shri Mani Dubey, grandson of defendant No. 2 Smt. Gomti Devi, is studying in BDS Course and, on completion thereof, will start his business in the rented premise after the death of the defendant No. 2, therefore, there will be a necessity of the rented premise for the business for Mani Dubey on completion of his BDS course. THE allegation regarding sub- tenancy was denied by the defendants. In support of the reply, the defendant No. 1 Kamal filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of Duli Chand and Panna Lal. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein it was pleaded that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff is the owner of the so-called ten shops as described by the defendants in their written-reply. He contended that, as per the details of ten shops as given in the reply, the Shops No. 4, 5 and 10 belong to Jain & Company and he is not the owner of the same; the remaining Shops No. 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 are occupied by other tenants and, at present, no shop is lying vacant wherein applicant's sons may start their business. It was also denied that the defendant No. 2 is doing her business after the death of her husband with the help of servant and grandson. It was contended that she is a housewife and is not running any business in the rented premise. The applicant further filed his own affidavit in support of the rejoinder and also the documentary evidence Exhibit-7, Exhibit-8, Exhibit-3 and Exhibit- 5. The learned Tribunal heard the arguments of the parties and formulated four questions for determination, as mentioned in Para 6 of the Judgment, in respect of the revision of monthly rent, reasonable and bona-fide necessity of the rented premise of the plaintiff, subletting of the rented premise by the defendants No. 1 and 2, to defendants No. 3 and 4 and an objection regarding maintainability of the application. ;