ORDER : 1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter ‘the tenant') to the judgment dated 19-8-2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Sawai Madhopur in Appeal No.3/2016 (4/2011) allowing the respondent-landlords' (hereinafter ‘the landlord') appeal, reversing the judgment dated 1-2-2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal Sawai Madhopur by dismissing the landlord's Eviction Petition No.161/2004 laid on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity and directing the tenant's eviction from the tenanted premises while issuing a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the cross examination of the landlord Akshay Kumar as recorded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal under direction of this court in SBCWP No.6405/2016 decided on 20-7- 2016. 3. On the pleading of the parties before it the Rent Tribunal framed issue No.1 on the question whether the tenanted premises were needed bonafide and reasonably by the landlord. The Rent Tribunal under its judgment dated 1-2-2011 dismissed the eviction petition, but as recorded above the Appellate Rent Tribunal under judgment dated 12-2-2016 reversed the Tribunal's judgment and came to a finding that the landlord had bonafide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted premises. 4. Mr. Suresh Kashyap brief holder for Shri L.N. Boss appearing for the tenant submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal that the landlord did not have bonafide and reasonable necessity leading to dismissal of the eviction petition was well considered, and therefore the Appellate Rent Tribunal had no occasion to interfere therewith. He submitted that from the evidence before the Rent Tribunal it had transpired that the landlord had scores of shops in the city, his main source of income appeared to be rent and therefore his purported necessity for the tenanted shop was simulated and neither reasonable nor bonafide. Mr. Suresh Kashyap pointed out the findings of the Rent Tribunal that the landlord had engaged in business with his father from a shop in Sarrafa bazar, and in the event the landlord had the purported bonafide and reasonable necessity of commencing business in electronic goods, he would having commenced the said business from the said shop in which the jewellery business had since admittedly ceased. 5. Ms. 5. Ms. Anita Agrawal, appearing for the landlord submitted that finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal with regard to the landlord not having a bonafide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop was vitiated by misreading of the evidence on record and in fact perverse. She submitted that the Rent Tribunal confused the shops available with father, mother and other extended family members of the landlord, and the tenanted shop in the ownership of the landlord. She submitted that the tenanted shop as per Ex.11 had devolved on the landlord under a will from his grand-father Kapoor Chand. And it was not proved by the tenant that the landlord had any other shop/suitable place of business in his own name either individually or even jointly. It was submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal is the final court of fact and had jurisdiction to interfere with and upset the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, concluding that it was not supported by the evidence on record. She submitted that albeit the landlord belonged to a family substantially well off, who among themselves individually owned various shops, while the landlord had no right to any of those shops nor could commence business there from on his own volition. It was submitted that the ownership of shops by father, mother, extended family members of the landlord such as aunt and cousins of the landlord could not be interpolated with the ownership of the landlord. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has discussed the issue of the landlord's ownership of the shops alleged by the tenant in great detail and held that he had ownership only of the tenanted shop, wherefrom he sought to commence the business in electronic items and none other. The finding of the Appellate Rent Tribunal is based on objective consideration of the evidence on record, submitted Ms. Anita Agrawal. Heard. Considered. 6. A perusal of the judgment of the Rent Tribunal indicates that it negated the reasonable necessity of the landlord for the tenanted shop on the sole ground that his father had a vacant shop in Sarrafa Bazar, which would have been available to the landlord in case he indeed wanted to commence business in electronic goods. The said reason for holding that the landlord did not require the shop reasonably and bonafide is clearly perverse. The said reason for holding that the landlord did not require the shop reasonably and bonafide is clearly perverse. The landlord is admittedly a major and albeit he did at one time use his father's shop jointly with him when in jewellery business, yet the matter was one purely of an arrangement between the two. No one can it even reasonably be inferred. The landlord had no right over his father's shop. The Tribunal could not on the basis of said shop belonging to landlord's father hold that the landlord had a shop in his own legal right, wherefrom he could commence his business in electronic goods. There is no finding of the Rent Tribunal that the landlord had any other shop in his ownership other than the tenanted one wherefrom he could commence his business in electronic goods. In the circumstances, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has correctly interfered with the perverse conclusion of the Rent Tribunal and on appreciation of the evidence on record rightly held that the landlord had only the tenanted shop in his ownership, from which he was entitled to conduct his business of electronic goods and the requirement for the tenanted shop therefore constituted a reasonable and bonafide necessity. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Arumugham Vs. Sundarambal [JT 1999(4) SC 464] has held that it is open for the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence of one side and rejecting the evidence of the other. Thus the First Appellate Rent Tribunal as the final court of fact committed no illegality in reversing the judgment of the Rent Tribunal. I am of the considered view that the findings arrived at by the Appellate Rent Tribunal with regard to the landlord's reasonable and bonafide necessity for the shop in issue is rock solid, founded as it is on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 8. No argument pertaining to the issue of revision of rent was raised and rightly so in view of the same already having been abandoned before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 9. In summation, it is held that counsel for the tenant has not been able to make out a case of the impugned judgment dated 19-8-2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law. 9. In summation, it is held that counsel for the tenant has not been able to make out a case of the impugned judgment dated 19-8-2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law. In fact the findings of fact by the Appellate Rent Tribunal as the final court of fact with regard to the landlord's bonafide and reasonable necessity for the tenanted shop is based on objective consideration of the evidence on record which cannot be reviewed or reweighed by this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as in appeal, as was sought by the counsel for the tenant. There is no force in the petition. It is dismissed.