JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition is directed against judgment and recovery certificate dated 3.11.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and judgement dated 22.9.2014 passed by the Appellant Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the application filed by the respondent-landlords claiming possession has been accepted and the appeal filed by the petitioners herein has been rejected respectively. 2. The fact in brief may be noticed thus - an application under Section 9(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the respondents-applicants before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, inter alia, seeking possession of the suit shop on the ground of reasonable and bona-fide necessity. It was, inter alia, claimed that the suit premises were required by the applicant Cordhan Das for his own and that of his son Pradeep, for the purpose of hotel business; Gordhan Das used to serve with Azad Hind Hotel earlier and was unemployed and has experience of hotel business; Pradeep was temporarily serving at Dubai, however, the climate there does not suit his health and, therefore, he wants to settle at Jodhpur, he is married and have a son. It was claimed that the shop was purchased for the said requirement after spending huge money, the applicants requested the respondent-tenants to hand over the possession, however, they refused. 3. The Writ petitioners filed reply to the application before the Rent Tribunal and oppose the averments made in the application. It was claimed that there were contradictions in the document (sale deed) and the averments made in the application; the shop was taken on rent from father of Gopi Kishan Bohra; Gopi Kishan Bohra filed a suit for personal necessity, which was withdrawn; the grounds indicating reasonable and bona-fide requirement of Gordhan Das and his son Pradeep were denied, claiming the same to be baseless. It was also indicated that brothers of Gordhan Das were aged 65 and 67 years and their views were also quite old and, therefore, they cannot undertake business; their children are well settled at Dubai/in Government Service; the applicants No. 2 and 3 were doing business in a shop, which was situated hereby in the name of M/s. Bag Emporium and the applicants living in joint family; Gordhan Das was also working with the said M/s. Bag emporium; no documents whatsoever has been filed showing the fact that the climate at Dubai does not suit Pradeep. 4. A replication was filed seeking to counter the averments made in the written statement. 5. On behalf of the applicants, PW-1 Pradeep and PW-2 Gordhan Das were examined and on behalf of the tenants DW-1 Gaina Devi and DW-2 Dharmendra, were examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the Rent Tribunal formulated two issues for determination pertaining to alleged non-joinder and bona fide requirement. The issue pertaining to non-joinder was decided against the tenants. While deciding the issue pertaining to bona fide requirements, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the premises were required bona-fide by Gordhan Das and his son Pradeep for hotel business and as the climate at Dubai did not suit Pradeep, he wants to settle in India at Jodhpur. The claim of the tenants regarding business of M/s. Bag Emporium was held against the tenants and, consequently, the application was allowed and the tenants were directed to hand over possession. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties, by its judgment dated 22.9.2014 upheld the findings recorded by Rent Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that both the Tribunals below fell in error in allowing the application/dismissing the appeal. It was submitted that from the record, it is apparent that the family of three brothers regarding Gordhan Das, Chuhad Mai and Heera Nand was joint and they were undertaking the business in the name of M/s. Bag Emporium jointly and, therefore, the plea Gordhan Das being unemployed and interested in starting hotel business at the suit premises is absolutely baseless. It is further submitted that the plea regarding the climate at Dubai not suiting Pradeep is absolutely baseless and the landlord has failed to prove the same; no evidence whatsoever was produced in support of the contention and a bare reading of cross-examination of Pradeep would reveal that the plea raised in this regard was baseless. It was submitted that the Tribunal without looking into the material available on record has merely on askance by the landlord, ignoring the mandate of law, has allowed the application/dismissed the appeal and, therefore, the same requires interference by this Court. 9. Reliance was placed on Kempaiah v. Lingaiah and Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 718 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 . 10. 9. Reliance was placed on Kempaiah v. Lingaiah and Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 718 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 . 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent-caveator's vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that both the Tribunals have concurrently found the requirement as claimed by the landlord as reasonable and bona fide and the findings being findings of fact and concurrent, does not require any interference under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that it was proved on record that the suit premises was required by Gordhan Das for his requirement and that of his son Pradeep for starting a hotel business, Gordhan Das had experience to conduct hotel business as he had himself served with the Azad Hind Hotel. It was further submitted that the tenants have miserably failed to prove that any joint family exist and/or the business at M/s. Bag Emporium was joint. The fact that climate at Dubai did not suit Pradeep is well established by his own evidence and it was not necessary for him to produce and documentary' evidence in support of the said plea. It was prayed that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival submission made by learned Counsel for the parties. 12. The application seeking possession of the premises was filed by Gordhan Das and his two sister-in-laws as landlords for bona-fide requirement of Gordhan Das and his son Pradeep for conducting hotel business at the suit premises on the ground that Gordhan Das, who was earlier serving with Azad Hind Hotel was employed and that Pradeep, who was serving at Dubai, wanted to settle at jodhpur as the climate at Dubai did not suit him. It is not in dispute that the suit premises were purchased by the three applicants jointly vide Ex.-10 on 14.9.2005 and the application seeking possession was filed in the year 2006. 13. It is not in dispute that the suit premises were purchased by the three applicants jointly vide Ex.-10 on 14.9.2005 and the application seeking possession was filed in the year 2006. 13. In the reply filed by the tenants before the Tribunal while the plea regarding climate at Dubai not suiting Pradeep were denied as baseless, regarding requirement of Gordhan Das, the following averments were inter alia, made in reply:- " pqgM+ey ,oa ghjkuan] xksj/kunkl ds HkkbZ gSa vkSj Lo;a xksj/ku nkl 50 o"kZ ds djhc vk;q dk gS vkSj ghjkuan 65 o"kZ vkSj pqgM+ey 67 o"kZ dk gksus ls budh iRuh ehuk ,oa uhrk dh vk;q Hkh dkQh o')koLFkk dks izkIr dj yh gSA bl dkj.k Lo;a }kjk Hkh oknxzLr ifjlj esa O;olk; fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gS vkSj u gh ,sls mUgksusa viuh ;kfpdk esa vfHkopu fd;s gSaA uhrk nsoh ds nks iq= ujs'k ,oa uUnq dze'k% 34 ,oa 32 o"kZ ds gSa] tks fiNys 15 ,oa 12 o"kksZa ls nqcbZ esa oSy lsVy gSa vkSj blh izdkj ehuk nsoh ds rhu iq= gSa] ftlesa ls lqjs'k ljdkjh lsok esa v/;kid ds in ij gS vkSj eukst 34 o"kZ ,oa deys'k 30 o"kZ Hkh fiNys dze'k% 15 ,oa 10 o"kksZa ls nqcbZ esa lsVy gks pqds gSaA vkSj rks vkSj pqgM+ey vkSj ghjkuan dh iRuh ehuk nsoh vkSj uhrk nsoh oknxzLr laifRr ds 5&7 nqdku NksM+ dj u;h turk LohV gkse ds lkeus tks/kiqj esa cgqr foLr'r Qsyh gq;h nqdku esa dkjksckj dj jgs gSa] ftlesa lqVdsl] csx] ,y;wfefu;e ,oa gS.MhdzkQ~V dk dkjksckj cSx ,Eiksfj;e ds uke ls dj jgs gSa] tks nqdku leku uki dh leku lqfo/kk dh nqdku gS vkSj izkFkhZx.k vkt Hkh la;qDr ifjokj esa lkFk gh jgrs gSa] rc tc fd cSx ,Eiksfj;e ds uke ls dkjksckj dh tkus okyh nqdku esa vkt rd iznhi] ujs'k] uanw] eukst] deys'k us vkdj dksbZ O;olk; dkjksckj ugha fd;k gS vkSj Lo;a xksj/kunkl us Lo;a gksVy dk O;olk; brus vjls ls ughaa fd;k gS] cfYd og bl cSx bEiksfj;e uked nqdku esa cSB dj gh dkjksckj mijksDr crk;s vuqlkj lqVdsl] cSx] bR;kfn dk djrk vk jgk gS] rc izkFkhZx.k dh ;kfpdk esa crk;h x;h vko';drk drbZ lgh vko';drk ugha jgrh gS vkSj egt fdz;sVsM fMtk;j ek= gh jgrh gSA tks flQZ ifjlj [kkyh djokus ds /;s; ls >wBh dgkuh x<+rs gq;s fyf[k x;h jgrh gS vkSj blls vf/kd dqN ugha jgrh gSA ,slh >wBh vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij oknxzLr ifjlj vizkFkhZx.k ls [kkyh ugha djok;k tk ldrk gSA " (Emphasis supplied) 14. From the above averments made in the reply, it is apparent that the specific plea raised is that Smt. Meena Devi and Smt. Neeta Devi are undertaking business in the name of M/s. Bag Emporium near the suit shop, applicants live in family and Gordhan Das was doing the business at M/s. Bag Emporium. 15. From the above averments itself, it is apparent that it is no the case of the applicants that the shop M/s. Bag Emporium was a joint family business of the applicants, specifically it has been indicated that Smt. Meena Devi and Smt. Neeta are doing the business in M/s. Bag Emporium and Gordhan Das was also 'the business there in ( og bl cSx ,Eiksfj;e uked nqdku esa cSB dj gh dkjksckj mijksDr crk;s vuqlkj lqVdsl] cSx bR;kfn dk djrk vk jgk gSA ) The applicants, Gordhan Das in his cross-examination clearly indicated at Page No. 144 of the Writ Petition that M/s. Bag Emporium was shop of his brother Chuhad Mai Heera Nand, wherein both conduct business and further indicated that when his brother go out, they leave the shop to him ( tc esjs HkkbZ ckgj tkrs gSa rc esjs dks cSx ,Eiksfj;e dh nqdku ij cSBkdj tkrs gSA ) 16. The above state of pleadings and evidence clearly show that Gordhan Das was neither the owner of the shop nor was regularly doing any business at M/s. Bag Empoirum, the plea raised by the petitioners in the written statement (supra) also is that the applicants 'live in joint family' and it is not the case at all that the business is joint'. Except for the pleas raised by the petitioners regarding the so called joint business in the name of M/s. Bag Emporium that also with the above state of pleadings no other plea was raised regarding the employment of Gordhan Das and, therefore, there is no substance in the plea now sought to be raised by the petitioners. 17. Except for the pleas raised by the petitioners regarding the so called joint business in the name of M/s. Bag Emporium that also with the above state of pleadings no other plea was raised regarding the employment of Gordhan Das and, therefore, there is no substance in the plea now sought to be raised by the petitioners. 17. So far as the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners that no material was produced by the applicants to show the constitution of business of M/s. Bag Emporium is concerned, suffice it to notice that the pleadings of the petitioners itself clearly indicated that the business was being conducted by Smt. Meena Devi and Smt. Neeta Devi and nothing prevented the petitioners from making a specific allegation that the business at the shop M/s. Bag Emporium was being conducted by all the three applicants jointly. In absence of any pleadings in this regard, there was no requirement for the applicants to prove the fact or otherwise. 18. So far as the plea raised by the applicants regarding the climate of Dubai not suiting Pradeep is concerned, it is no doubt true that Pradeep did not produce any medical evidence in support of the said contention, but in the pleadings and in the affidavit filed by Pradeep, it was clearly indicated that as the climate does not suit him, he want to settle at Jodhpur and in the cross-examination, all the suggestions made to him regarding falsity in the plea were clearly denied by him. The fact that Pradeep stated in his cross-examination that even if he was offered job in India at a salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month, he would not join the said service, on which much emphasis was laid by learned Counsel for the petitioners, cannot by itself lead to any inference regarding the alleged falsity in the claim. 19. So far as the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners are concerned, there is not dispute regarding the principles laid down in the case of Kempaiah (supra) that a wish or desire to occupy the leased premises does not prove the bona-fide requirement, however as notice hereinbefore, it cannot be said that the requirement of the applicants was merely a wish or desire. The judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) lays down the parameters for revisional jurisdiction under various Rent Control Acts, and provides that High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to correctness or illegality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it. The said principles also apparently does not help the petitioners' case as noticed hereinbefore, the findings after having been examined by this Court appears to be just and proper. 20. Both the Tribunals have concurrently found the requirement of the applicants-landlords as bona fide and the said finding being essentially a finding of fact, which was discussed above cannot be said to be preserve, does not required any interference under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 21. While concluding the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners had prayed that in case, the petition was not admitted, the petitioners may be granted time to vacate the suit premises. 22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, the petitioners are conducting their business in the suit shop, the petitioners are granted six months time to vacate the suit premises on their filing undertaking within a period of two weeks from today before the Tribunal along-with affidavit that they would peacefully hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the applicants-landlords by 31.5.2015. 23. it would be required of the petitioners to pay the arrears, if any, within 3 weeks from today and mesne profit Rs. 5,000/- per month during the said extended period of six months i.e. for the months of December, 2014 to May, 2015, the mesne profits be paid by 15 of each subsequent month. 24. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the Writ Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed However, the petitioners are granted extra time of 6 months for vacating the suit raises subject to their fulfilling the conditions indicating hereinbefore.Petition dismissed. *******