1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1211/2009 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1884/2008 with D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.1903/2009 Satish Jain vs. Radhey Mohan Sharma & Anr. Date of order :: 21.10.2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Abhay Jain for appellant. Mr. Mukesh Agarwal for respondent. (PER HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 17.7.2009 whereby his writ petition was dismissed. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order of his eviction dated 4.8.2006 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jaipur and the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur dated 7.2.2008 whereby his appeal against the former was rejected. Appellant is a tenant in the premises of which respondent no.1 is landlord. Respondent filed an application u/s.6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal for revision of rent and eviction of appellant on the ground of default of payment of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and nuisance. Rent Tribunal decided the issue with regard to payment of default in payment and also 2 the bona fide necessity against the tenant, but the issue of nuisance was decided in favour of the tenant. It was held that the landlord had no other property in his name in the city of Kota and that another property, title of which stood in the name of his wife, was already sold in August, 2000 and that the landlord was residing in rented premises in Kota itself. The issue of nuisance however was not found proved and therefore was decided in favour of the tenant. The order of eviction was passed against the tenant with direction to him to handover vacant premises within three months. The appeal filed by the appellant-tenant was rejected by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and thereafter the writ petition was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Shri Abhay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that notice as contemplated in Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was defective and that eviction proceedings on such defective notice cannot be held to be valid. Decree of eviction passed against the appellant was therefore illegal. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Chiman Lal vs. Mishri Lal-1985 (1) SCC 14. It was argued that the learned Rent Tribunal failed to appreciate argument of defective notice because even if the demanded rate is in excess or even if the description of the 3 property is different, it would not make any difference. It was argued that the finding on the question of reasonable bona fide necessity has also been erroneously recorded by all the courts below because there was no evidence to show that the property, that was in the name of the wife of the landlord, had been sold. Mere fact that property was sold would not be a substitute for a proof of bona fide necessity of the landlord which has to be independently proved. Receipt of rent produced by the landlord from his own landlord in order to prove that he was also a tenant in his premises, could not have been accepted in evidence unless the same was produced in evidence in accordance with provisions of Section 21(1). The so called landlord Shri Purshottam Sharma was not produced in evidence to prove this receipt in his evidence. The factum that the landlord was himself residing independently in a rented premises could not be taken into consideration. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed. Shri Mukesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal have concurrently decided the issue of default in making payment of rent as also the bona fide personal necessity against the appellant. It was argued that these being concurrent findings of fact, could not have been interfered with. The 4 learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition as in the scope of writ under Article 227, interference could be made only if it was shown that there was any perversity or any such error apparent on the face of record, which goes to the root of the matter. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material forming part of the record. The finding on the question of default as also reasonable bona fide personal necessity are essentially questions of fact, which of course are based on correct appreciation of evidence, but learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Unless it was shown that those Tribunals omitted to consider any relevant material or have taken into consideration some irrelevant material in arriving at their finding, their findings cannot be regarded as erroneous. There could be no justification for Single Bench of this Court to interfere in such matters in the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not persuaded to agree that the notice served by the appellant on the landlord in any manner was defective or that the question of reasonable bona fide necessity was not proved in 5 favour of landlord. We therefore do not find any infirmity in any of the orders impugned and also do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the stay application also stand disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (ARUN MISHRA),J. RS/-