- (1.) The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Order and Judgment dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal Udaipur vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner- tenant against the Order and Judgment dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord was dismissed.
(2.) The facts in short are that the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur seeking decree of eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in question on the grounds of default and reasonable and bonafide necessity. The petitioner-tenant filed reply to the said eviction petition stating that he did not commit any default in making the payment of the rent on time and nor there is any bonafide need and reasonable necessity of the shop in question to the respondent-landlord and his grand sons, namely, Anandilal and Chandra Prakash. The respondent-landlord filed rejoinder to the said reply. The Rent Tribunal vide its Order and Judgment dated 22.08.2008 allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord. Aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur, which was dismissed vide Order and Judgment dated 17.08.2013. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) While praying for setting aside impugned orders and judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant contended that the respondent-landlord has 09 shops out of which 02 shops which are mortgaged are likely to be vacated. In one shop, the respondent-landlord is running the wood depot. His grand-sons are working on the said shop and therefore, the shop in question is not needed by him. Secondly, the courts below have allowed the eviction petition on the ground which was not even pleaded. It was assumed by the courts below that a partition had taken place in the family and in pursuance to the said partition, the number of shops that fell in the share of the respondent-landlord are not sufficient. The said finding is based on assumption and presumption and third, during the pendency of the appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, the respondent-landlord served the legal notice to Anandilal, his own grand-son, asking him to pay the rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, which shows that the respondent- landlord did not require the shop in question for his grand-son Anandilal and in fact, Anandilal is his tenant. The petitioner- tenant duly filed an application to place the said original legal notice on record but the Rent Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal without deciding the said application, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. ;