JUDGMENT 1. - In both the above writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment dated 10.8.2011 (Annex.-9) passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara in Appeals No. 42/2007 and No. 46/2007, whereby, learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Bhilwara affirmed the order Annex.-7 dated 20.2.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara by which a decree for eviction was passed by the Rent Tribunal against the petitioners and directed them to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 632/- from the date of filing application i.e. 29.11.2003. Learned Rent Tribunal further passed order that the vacant possession of the premises in question shall be handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within six months. 2. As per facts of the case, an application under Section 9 for eviction and under Section 6 for revision of rent was filed by the respondent-applicant for evicting the petitioners from the shop situated at the ground-floor at Bhopal Ganj, Bhilwara. The main ground was taken by the applicant that the shop in question was given on rent to M/s. Om Prakash to one Ramjas and Sravan Kumar without their consent, therefore, on the ground of sub-letting the respondent-applicant prayed for decree of eviction, so also, on the ground of bona fide necessity. The main ground was taken by the applicant that the shop in question was given on rent to M/s. Om Prakash to one Ramjas and Sravan Kumar without their consent, therefore, on the ground of sub-letting the respondent-applicant prayed for decree of eviction, so also, on the ground of bona fide necessity. The Rent Tribunal after due trial framed following issues for adjudication mentioned in para 6 of the judgment: " 1- D;k vthZnkj dh vthZ dh pj.k la[;k 3 esa of.kZr iM+kSlh ds e/; fLFkr nqdku fojks/kh i{kdkj la0 1 ls 28 o"kZ igys tk;nkn ds iwoZ Lokfeuh Jherh J`ftouh ls :0 725@& ekfld ds fdjk;s ij yh Hkh o 5-10-1996 ds fodkl ds vk/kkj ij vthZnkj vc bldk ekfyd gksus ls nQk 6 ds rgr fdjk;s 'kqnk ifjlj dk iqujhf{kr fdjk;k :0 3]525@& izfrekg r; djkus dk gdnkj gS\ 2- D;k fojks/kh i{kdkj la0 1 us fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk vk/kk Hkkx fojks/kh i{kdkj la0 2 o 3 dks nj fdjk;s ij ns fn;k gS\ 3- D;k fdjk;s'qknk ifjlj dh vthZnkj dks Lo;a ds rFkk iq=ksa ds O;olk; ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ vko';drk gS\ 4- D;k fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk loZizFke 30 o"kZ iwoZ fdjk;k :0 150@& izfrekg Fkk rFkk fojks/kh i{kdkj la0 2 o 3 fojks/kh i{kdkj la0 1 ds ekfyd jkeiky tkxsfV;k ds iq= ,oa ikS= gksus rFkk mudh e`R;q ds ckn vthZnkj dh tkudkjh esa vyx&2 O;olk; djrs gSa] ;fn ,slk gS rks bldk vthZnkj dh vthZnkj dh vthZ ij D;k vlj gS\ " 3. While deciding issue No. 1, the Rent Tribunal held that applicant is entitled to claim rent of Rs. 632/- per month with effect from 29.11.2003. The Rent Tribunal, after taking into consideration the entire evidence both documentary as well as oral evidence, gave the aforesaid finding. 4. Similarly, for issue No. 2, it is categorically held by the Rent Tribunal that shop in question was taken on rent by M/s. Om Prakash Giri Raj but it is illegally sub-let without any consent of the landlord to Ramjas and Sravan Kumar. The finding given on issue No. 2 by the Rent Tribunal is also based upon sound appreciation of documentary evidence and finding upon issue No. 3 with regard to bonafide necessity is also decided in favour of the respondent landlord. 5. The finding given on issue No. 2 by the Rent Tribunal is also based upon sound appreciation of documentary evidence and finding upon issue No. 3 with regard to bonafide necessity is also decided in favour of the respondent landlord. 5. The contention of the petitioners' counsel with regard to non-application of mind and not taking the evidence into consideration in right perspective for proper adjudication has no substance because the Rent Tribunal considered entire evidence which is brought on record by both the parties. 6. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record gave finding that the judgment of the Rent Tribunal does not require any interference. In my opinion, it is settled principle of law that if any premises is taken on rent it cannot be sub-let to others without the consent of the landlord. Likewise, if the applicant proves before the Court that he has bonafide necessity of the premises, then, obviously the landlord is entitled for decree of eviction in the matter. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal as well as affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 7. In the result, therefore, both the above writ petitions are dismissed. However, upon verbal prayer made by the petitioners' counsel I deem it appropriate to grant six months' time to the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent Dharamveer and, for the said purpose, the petitioners in both the above writ petition are directed to furnish their respective undertaking before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara that they will hand over vacant possession of the premises in question on or before 30.9.2012 and pay mesne profits month by month. It is made clear that if the petitioners will fail to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question on or before 30.9.2012 the respondent will be at liberty to file contempt petition against the petitioners before this Court.Petition dismissed. *******