- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner- landlord assailing the judgment dated 12/07/2013 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur, by which it has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord against the judgment dated 03/03/2011 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur by which the it has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that there is perversity in the judgments passed by both the courts below and the provisions of the Act of 2001 have wrongfully been read. Learned counsel, while assailing the judgments passed by both the courts below, has taken this Court to the order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal and pointed out that the learned Rent Tribunal has rejected contention of the petitioner-landlord for personal necessity of the premises on the ground that the petitioner-landlord had rented out the premises after the premises having fallen vacant on 20/12/2003 from the erstwhile tenant Nathulal to the present respondent-tenant on 15/10/2004. The learned Rent Tribunal, therefore, has wrongfully assumed that if the petitioner required the shop (rented premises) for his personal necessity, then the petitioner-landlord ought not have rented out the premises to the respondent-tenant in 2004 and could have used the premises for the purpose of his own business after the rented premises (shop) was got vacated from the earlier tenant Nathulal. Learned counsel submits that regarding reasonable and personal bonafide necessity, in terms of Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, it is not required that the reasonable and personal bonafide necessity is to be seen on the day when the property was given on rent but is to be seen on the day when the application is moved for seeking eviction. It is submitted that the application for eviction was moved in 2010 and thus, there is a perversity in the judgment of the learned Rent Tribunal which has been erroneously upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal.
(3.) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord that the learned Rent Tribunal has committed an error of law which has been upheld by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on the ground that the notice sent to the respondent-tenant on 15/10/2005 was for the period less than four months of default and therefore, the application moved on the ground of default in payment of rent was in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was wrongly decided against the petitioner-landlord. It is submitted that admittedly both the courts below have not given a finding that there was any default at all and in-fact there was a default of payment of rent from 15/06/2005 upto 14/02/2010 i.e. for a period of 56 months. However, both the courts have only looked into the period mentioned in the notice to reach to a conclusion that there was no default although no such evidence had come on record. Learned counsel further pointed out that it had come on record before both the courts below that the petitioner- landlord was earlier carrying on his business in rented premises wherein a decree was passed for handing over possession of the shop to the landlord and in the High Court an undertaking was given to handover the shop to the landlord whereafter the petitioner is unable to do his business of tent house which he has been doing for more than 30-35 years and thus, he had a personal bonafide and reasonable necessity of his own property. The said aspect has been completely ignored by both the courts below and therefore, the judgments impugned passed by both the courts below are required to be set aside.;