SBCWP NO.10069/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10069/2007. Vimal Saxena & Ors. Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order : 31 January 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Mohd.Anees for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Pareek for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 19/11/2007 whereby the order earlier passed by the Rent Tribunal was affirmed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The facts concerned to the present matter are that an application for eviction was filed by the non-petitioner on various grounds including the ground of default and bonafide personal necessity. The application for eviction was thereafter allowed by the Rent Tribunal by accepting it to be a case of bonafide personal necessity of the non-petitioner and also on the ground of default. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal SBCWP NO.10069/07. 2 before the Tribunal. The said appeal was thereafter dismissed by maintaining the order of the Rent Tribunal. So far as question of default is concerned, matter was not argued much rather it has been given out that from the month of June 2005 onwards petitioners have not paid any rent to the non- petitioner landlord. Otherwise also, the perusal of the impugned-orders reveals that the issue regarding default of payment of rent was decided after taking note of not only the entire material available on record i.e. factual aspect as well as the legal position in that regard. Hence, the counsel for petitioners could not advance much argument in that regard. It is necessary to mention a further fact that this Court on 12/12/2007 directed the petitioners to deosite the entire arrears of rent from the month of June, 2005 till the month of December, 2007 and further to pay monthly rent from January 2008 along with payment of mesne-profit @ Rs.3000/-. On the aforesaid condition, the interim- order was passed however, it is now informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that even the said direction of this court has not been complied SBCWP NO.10069/07. 3 with and this part has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Thus, the outcome of the aforesaid is that from June 2005 till date the petitioners have not paid rent and thereby an application maintained by the petitioners regarding default and revival of the factual finding in that regard cannot be interferred. So far as the question of bonafide personal necessity is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the non-petitioner is having four vacant rooms in front of the property but instead of using those rooms, he is evicting the petitioners from two rooms possessed by him in the back side of the portion. The argument so made is not found favour from the Tribunals below because as per the finding of fact, the remining portion of the non-petitioner landlord is already on rent thus, the existence of vacant rooms in front of the suit premises is not found factually correct. Other than this fact, learned counsel for the petitioners could not submit any other ground to show that finding of fact recorded in regard to personal bonafide necessity is in any manner perverse. Considering the order under challenge, it is not in dispute that there exists a concurrent SBCWP NO.10069/07. 4 finding of fact in favour of non-petitioner and otherwise it is on record that petitioners have not paid rent from June 2005 hence, not only there is default in payment of rent even before filing of the application for eviction but even during the pendency of the application also and which rent has not been paid by the petitioners till date and a further fact that finding of fact in regard to bonafide personal necessity also do not suffer from any perversity or illegality, no interference can be made in the judgments which are based on concurrent finding of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil