1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6142/2007 The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Smt. Shakuntla Bhansali & Anr. Date of Order :: 25th September, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.N.Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 12.3.2007 whereby learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur set aside the judgment dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Udaipur rejecting the application preferred by respondent Smt. Shakuntla Bhansali under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”). In brief, facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Shakuntla Bhansali preferred an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 claiming bonafide necessity for eviction of the tenant from the premises rented. It was stated in the application that earlier the applicant was residing at Jaipur, however, after death of her husband on 22.2.2002 and due to employment of her son Shri Vikrant Bhansali abroad, she want to stay at her native place i.e. Udaipur, thus, she is having a 2 bonafide necessity of the premises rented. The Rent Tribunal rejected the application by holding that adequate residential facility is available to the applicant and in the rented premises a government dispensary is running and that being in larger public interest the necessity of the landlord was not bonafide. Learned Appellate Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the Rent Tribunal held that the applicant is permanent resident of Udaipur and after death of her husband if she want to stay at Udaipur that is her native place and she requires premises to park her car as well as to provide residential facility to her servant, then it is nothing but a bonafide necessity. The appellate tribunal also observed that applicant Smt. Shakuntla Bhansali is a widow lady and, therefore, necessity of keeping a servant is quite obvious. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the applicant was having adequate accommodation to reside and the premises in question is sought by her only for providing residential facility to her servant and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as a bonafide necessity of the landlord. Having considered the orders impugned and also the argument advanced, I found that the respondent being a widow want to stay at Udaipur that 3 is her native place and she is in need of the premises to provide residential facility to the servant. It is quite obvious that a widow lady living alone requires assistance of a servant and, thus, the premises required to provide the residential facility to a servant is nothing but a bonafide necessity. The space required to park a car in the present set of facts too is a bonafide necessity. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, a request is made by counsel for the petitioners that some more time may be given to vacate the premises as the government dispensary is running there from last more than three decades. I found the request made by counsel for the petitioners is not genuine as a period of one year was already granted to the petitioners by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur. This petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.