[2025:RJ-JP:40553] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16922/2024 Sharwan Kumar Bhatia Son Of Shri Topandas, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 448/9-201/5, Nasia Marg, Outside Of Agra Gate, Ajmer, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus Totaram Agarwal Son Of Shri Ratanlal Agarwal, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of 448/9-201/5, Nasia Marg, Outside Of Agra Gate, Ajmer, District Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri with Ms. Bismaad Kaur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/10/2025 1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Rent Appeal No. 51/2019, CIS No. 51/2019, titled as 'Sharwan Kumar Bhatia Vs. Totaram Agarwal', whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, and the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Original Application No. 812/2012 (156/2011), titled as 'Totaram Vs. Sharwan Kumar', was upheld and confirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the [2025:RJ-JP:40553] (2 of 4) [CW-16922/2024] impugned order. He further submits that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal overlooked the pleading and evidence of the petitioner while accepting the eviction petition. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that there is a concurrent finding recorded against the petitioner regarding the non-user of the tenanted premises and the bona fide requirement of the respondent. Both these issues are questions of fact and are not open to interference in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the impugned orders. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, was filed by the respondent in the year 2011, primarily on the grounds of non-user of the tenanted premises and bona fide necessity. 6. A bare perusal of the findings recorded under Issue No. 1 regarding the non-user of the tenanted premises shows that the learned Rent Tribunal, after a detailed examination of the facts and evidence, has recorded a finding that the respondent-landlord has proved the said issue by leading evidence of himself as AW-1. Further, the learned Rent Tribunal recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his defense that he is using [2025:RJ-JP:40553] (3 of 4) [CW-16922/2024] the tenanted premises by placing on record electric bills, photograph etc. Therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal decided the issue against the petitioner and in favor of the respondent- landlord. 7. Similarly, Issue No. 2, relating to bona fide necessity, was also decided against the petitioner and in favor of the respondent - landlord, considering that the respondent, who is 65 years of age and suffers from hypertension, diabetes, knee problems, and cardiovascular issues, has bona fide necessity of the suit property, which is situated on the ground floor. Further, observing that the landlord is the best Judge for his bona fide necessity, and the tenant cannot dictate in what manner the landlord should use his property. 8. Thus, it is quite clear from the above that the learned Rent Tribunal has carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and has decided both issues against the petitioner. 9. Further, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, after considering the reasons and findings of the learned Rent Tribunal, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 04.06.2024 while confirming the order dated 13.08.2019. 10. A perusal of the aforementioned orders reveal that both the learned Tribunals below have thoroughly examined the pleadings and evidence, and have rightly accepted the eviction petition on the grounds of non-user of tenanted premises and bona fide necessity, since both issues, relate to questions of fact, and have [2025:RJ-JP:40553] (4 of 4) [CW-16922/2024] been concurrently decided in favor of the respondent, such findings are not to be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Therefore, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. 13. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/1