JUDGMENT 1. - On the ground of change of user, bona fide necessity and default in payment of rent, the petitioner preferred an application as per provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001' hereinafter) before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Chittorgarh seeking revision and recovery of rent and also eviction of the tenant (respondent No.3) from the rent premises. The Rent Tribunal by the judgment dated 28.4.2009, while negativating the grounds of bona fide necessity and default in payment of rent, accepted the application on the ground of change of user. A direction, thus, was given to the tenant for eviction of the rented premises and to handover vacant possession of that to the landlord, within a period of six months. A necessary certificate in the terms of the directions given was also issued. 2. To question, correctness and validity of the judgment passed by the Tribunal, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. A cross appeal was also filed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner in cross appeal was that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the issue pertaining to bona fide need of the premises to the landlord in correct prospective. 3. By the judgment dated 19.1.2010, learned Rent Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal preferred by the tenant and rejected the cross appeal. A certificate was also issued accordingly. In the background aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred to challenge the judgment and certificate dated 19.1.2010. 4. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that:- (1)- the Tribunals below erred while not adequately appreciating the issue relating to bona fide necessity of the petitioner, as much as, even ignored the statements given by the witness of the respondent-tenant. (2)- the Rent Appellate Tribunal erred while interfering with the finding given by the Rent Tribunal pertaining to change of the purpose of use and also by reaching at the conclusion that the tenant did not use the premises inconsistent to the purpose for which that was rented out. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. So far as first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to mention that both the Tribunals below after considering entire material available on record reached at a definite conclusion that the necessity cited by the landlord was not a bona fide one. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. So far as first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to mention that both the Tribunals below after considering entire material available on record reached at a definite conclusion that the necessity cited by the landlord was not a bona fide one. The conclusion arrived is based on sound appreciation of evidence available and law applicable. The same is not at all perverse or contrary to the record or in any manner illegal to the extent that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The other argument of the petitioner is that the premises in question was rented out to the respondent-tenant only to have a business of running STD booth, but he utilised that to run a gift item shop and a restaurant, thus, the change of use is on face and that makes the petitioner entitled to have a certificate of eviction. The Rent Tribunal after considering all relevant facts rightly granted the certificate of eviction but that was erroneously interfered by the Rent Appellate Tribunal. 7. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed by learned counsel upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Arul Jothi and Another v. Lajja Bal (deceased) and Another, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 723 . Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of this Court in Poosa Ram v. Madan Gopal, reported in 2005(2) DNJ (Raj.) 827 and Rajkumar v. Shanti Prasad, reported in 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 289 . 8. In the instant matter the Rent Tribunal reached at the conclusion about the change of use on basis of the statement of Daya Shankar Das (AW-2), who stated that the respondent has started a business of gift-item shop and restaurant in the rented shop that is contrary to the conditions of tenancy. No cross examination of this witness was made in this regard. The Rent Tribunal in absence of the cross-examination treated the fact stated by the witness as admitted one by the tenant and thus, granted the certificate for eviction. The Rent Tribunal reversed the finding on the count that even if, the tenant was having a gift shop in the rented premises, then too there is no inconsistency with the purpose for which the premises was rented. The Rent Tribunal reversed the finding on the count that even if, the tenant was having a gift shop in the rented premises, then too there is no inconsistency with the purpose for which the premises was rented. The Appellate Tribunal also held that commencing of some other business with the existing business at the premises rented, is no ground for eviction under the Act of 2001. 9. The Appellate Tribunal also held that commencing of some other business with the existing business at the premises rented, is no ground for eviction under the Act of 2001. 9. As per Section 9 of the Act of 2001, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or contract but subject to other provisions of this Act, Rent Tribunal shall not order eviction of tenant, unless it is satisfied that:- (a)- the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months: Provided that the ground under this clause shall, not be available to the landlord if he was not disclosed to the tenant his bank account under and name of the bank in the same municipal area, in the rent agreement or by a notice sent to him by registered post, acknowledgement due: Provided further that no petition on the ground under this clause shall be filed unless the landlord has given a notice to the tenant by registered post, acknowledgement due, demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent within a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice; Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, the rent shall be deemed to have been tendered when the same is remitted through money order to the landlord by properly addressing the same; or (b)- the tenant has willfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises; or (c)- the tenant has without written permission of the landlord made or permitted to be made any construction which has materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof; or (d)- the tenant has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the premises or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the landlord's interest therein; or (e)- the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises without the written permission of the landlord; Explanation:- If it is established that some person other than the tenant is in the exclusive possession of the whole or part of the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant has either sub-let or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises, as the case may be; or (f)- the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant; or (g)- the premises were let out for residential purposes but have been put to commercial use wholly or partially; or (h)- the premises were let out to the tenant for residential purposes by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the tenant has ceased to be in such service or employment; or (i)- the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation, of any person for whose benefit the premises are held: Provided that where decree of eviction from any premises is sought by the landlord under clause (i), he shall be prohibited from letting out the same to any other person within a period of three years and in case the premises are let-out, the tenant shall be entitled for restoration of possession on a petition moved by him before the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal shall dispose of such petition expeditiously and the procedure as laid down in section 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply; or (j)- the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted suitable premises adequate for his requirement; or (k)- the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the petition; or (l)- the landlord has been required by any authority under any law to abate the over crowding of the premises; or (m)- the landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work, (i)- at the instance of the State Government or a local authority in pursuance of an improvement scheme or development scheme; or (ii)- because the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation." 10. The ground that may be relevant in the present case is prescribed under Clause (g) of Section 9 of the Act of 2001, and that is "the premises were let out for residential purposes but have been put to commercial use wholly or partially." It is not at all in dispute that premises in the present case was not given for residential purpose, but only for a commercial purpose and as such, no eviction certificate could have been issued on basis of the ground prescribed under Clause (g) of Section 9 of the Act of 2001. An effort is made to bring the case in clause (k) of Section 9, but that too is not relevant in present set of facts as ample evidence is available to establish currency of STD booth at the premises rented. 11. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Arul Jothi and Another (supra) is concerned, suffice it to mention that in the case aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter wherein eviction was sought, as per provisions of Transfer of Property Act, and also on basis of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, that reads as under:- "10. Eviction of tenants.- (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 14 to 16: * * * (2)- A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied- (i) * * * (ii) that the tenant has after the 23rd October, 1945, without the written consent of the landlord- (a) * * * (b) used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or * * *" (emphasis supplied)" 12. The provision aforesaid clearly mentions that the landlord may seek eviction of a tenant on satisfying the Controller use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased to the tenant. No such ground is available for eviction under the Act of 2001. As such, the judgment cited is having no application in this matter. 13. No such ground is available for eviction under the Act of 2001. As such, the judgment cited is having no application in this matter. 13. The other judgments, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance are also having no application in the present controversy. In both the cases, eviction from the rented premises was granted on the count of creation of nuisance by using the premises of a purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which the tenant was admitted to the tenancy. In the present case no such ground is at all taken by the landlord and no material is also available on record to establish any kind of creation of nuisance. As such, the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal has not committed any such error that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The petition for writ is dismissed, accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******