NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned Order and Judgment dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara vide which the appeal filed by the respondent - tenant against the Order and Judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara decreeing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner - landlord was allowed with a further prayer to uphold the Order and Judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara.
(2.) The petitioner-landlord filed the eviction petition under Sections 9, 10(1)(i)(c) and 10(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of the respondent - tenant on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity of the suit premises for his own use as senior citizen. The Rent Tribunal framed 06 issues for determination of the eviction petition. The Issue No. 4 was with respect to bonafide and personal necessity of the suit premises and Issue No. 5 was with respect to the right to recover immediate possession as Senior Citizen. The Rent Tribunal allowed the eviction petition vide Order and Judgment dated 18.11.2009. The respondent-tenant challenged the said order and judgment before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal vide Order and Judgment dated 24.04.2012 and set aside the order and judgment of the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the need of the petitioner - landlord was not bonafide and reasonable as three rooms are still lying vacant with him behind the disputed shop, which he can utilize for the purpose, if required. The very fact that they are lying vacant and are not being used, the plea of bonafide is false.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent - tenant while vehemently opposing the writ petition submitted that the petitioner - landlord on being cross-examined had accepted that there are three rooms lying vacant behind the disputed shop.;