[2025:RJ-JP:8595] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19361/2022 1. Permanand Son Of Mirchumal Israni, Shop No. G-3, Hal- wai Market, Shri Narains Ground Shop, Town Sanganer, Jaipur At Present 129, Bagreto Ka Mohalla, Bawari Ka Bass, Jaipur (Deceased) Through His Legal Representa- tives- 1/1. Kanhaya Israni, Son Of Shri Permanand Israni 1/2. Laxman Israni Son Of Shri Permanand Israni, Both R/o Shop No. G-3, Halwai Market, Srinarain Ke Grounds Shop, Town Sanganer, Jaipur At Present R/o 129, Bagreto Ka Mohalla, Bawari Ka Bass, Sanganer At Presi- dent 30/57 Sindhi Colony, Sanganer Jaipur (Deceased During Appeal) ----Petitioners/Tenant Versus Smt. Versha Wife Of Shri Laxman Das, Resident Of 113/39, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur ----Respondent/Landlord For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shubham Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 25/02/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and validity of the order dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned Appellate Rent Tribunal’) whereby, while dismissing the appeal no.131/2019 preferred by the petitioners/non-applicants/tenants (for brevity, [2025:RJ-JP:8595] (2 of 4) [CW-19361/2022] ‘tenants’), final order dated 04.07.2019 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned Rent Tribunal’) allowing the application filed by the respondent/applicant/landlord (for brevity, ‘landlord’) under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, ‘Act of 2001’), has been affirmed. The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the tenants on 22.09.2012 seeking their eviction from the suit shop on the grounds, inter alia, default in payment of rent and reasonable and bona fide necessity. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide final order dated 04.07.2019 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the tenants before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal which dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.08.2022. Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the tenants submits that findings of the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on issue no.1 qua default in payment of rent are against the evidence on record. He further submits that they have paid the arrears of rent to the President of ‘Punya Sindhi Panchayat’ which the learned Tribunal ignored. Qua reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord, learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal erred in issuing the recovery certificate on this count ignoring and overlooking that the son, for whose necessity the application was filed, was minor at the relevant time and the landlord was having an accommodation other than the tenanted premises available with her which could satisfy the need pleaded. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order [2025:RJ-JP:8595] (3 of 4) [CW-19361/2022] impugned dated 27.08.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the landlord be dismissed. Heard. Considered. While deciding the issue no.1 against the tenants vide final order dated 04.07.2019, the learned Rent Tribunal has held that although, they have come out with a specific case that they have paid arrears of rent for five months through the ‘Punya Sindhi Panchayat’ in presence of S/ Shri Dheeraj Kumar and Bhagwas Das; but, they failed to substantiate this plea. It was held that neither any evidence was produced to establish that the arrears of rent for five months were paid through the Panchayat nor, either Shri Dheeraj Kumar or Shri Bhagwan Das was produced in the witness box rather, the tenant-Permanand, during his cross-examination as DW-1, has admitted that he did not have any receipt to show that he deposited the arrears of rent for five months with the Panchayat nor, he was aware who was its office bearer. These findings have been upheld by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its order impugned dated 27.08.2022 while reappreciating the evidence on record. While deciding the issue no.2 qua reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord in her favour, the learned Rent Tribunal has held that husband of the landlord did not have any place to carry out business; rather, was selling the goods as a street hawker on a cycle and the subject shop was required for herself and her son who was about to gain majority. It was further held that the tenants could not substantiate their plea that the landlord also has place other than the subject shop to carry out [2025:RJ-JP:8595] (4 of 4) [CW-19361/2022] business. These findings have also been upheld by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal reappreciating and analyzing the evidence on record. It was also held by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that Shri Permanand has admitted during his cross-examination as DW-1 that he was unaware as to whether the son of the landlord was major and was still unemployed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal and the learned Rent Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence on record and the sound legal principles. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /11