1. - This writ is directed against order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No.21/2006, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners/non-applicants under Section 21 and 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001') read with Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC, praying for deletion of para No.9 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents and to struck off a document Exhibit 17 and an affidavit of one Shri Narpat Singh Mehta from the record stands rejected.

2. The brief facts in nutshell relevant to the controversy involved filed this writ petition are that respondents No. 1 to 5 (landlord) filed a petition under Section 15 of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur for eviction of petitioners (tenants) from the disputed property let out to them, on the grounds in terms of provisions of Section 9(i) and (m) of the Act of 2001 i.e. for reasonable and bona fide necessity and the requirements of the premises to carry out the building work.

3. The respondents are currying on business in the name of Jodhpur Lodge on the first floor of the premises in question. The requirements of the premises to carry out the building work is pleaded by the respondents stating that on 07.12.1999 fire broke in godown of firm M/s. Delhi Furniture House which spreaded in their property. According to the respondents, the fire has caused substantial damage to their property and therefore, the same needs to be reconstructed after dismantle.

4. The application is being contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto. The petitioners have taken the stand in their reply that the walls and the roof of the disputed properly have not been damaged and the same is safe for human haoitation. In para No. 9 of the reply, the petitioners denied the allegation that on account of the fire, the premises has been completely damaged. It is stated that only certain stone slabs cracked, which fell on the roof of the rented premises and damaged the kitchen and resulted in cracks in the roof made of stone slabs, Precisely, according to the petitioners, the premises has not been substantially damaged so as to warrant reconstruction after dismantling the existing building.

5. The respondents filed a detailed rejoinder to the reply filed or behalf of the petitioners. In para No. 9 of the rejoinder, the respondents reiterating their stand that the premises stand substantially damaged placed on record the video of the entire (building and so also a report (Ex. 17) prepared by an expert Dr.3.C. Punamia, Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur after undertaking site inspection alongwith yet another engineer one Shri Narpat Singh Mehta. The photographs showing the wide spread damages to the structural elements of the building are also attached with the report produced. Besides, in support of the averments made in the rejoinder, an affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta lids also been filed.

6. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 21 and 15 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 8, Rule 9 , CPC objecting the additional pleadings in para No. 9 of the rejoinder so also the document (Ex,17) and affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta being taken on record. It was prayed that para No.9 of the rejoinder may be ordered to be deleted and the Ex.17 alongwith photographs and the affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta may be struck off from the record and be kept In the "D" part of the file.

7. After consideration of the rival submissions; the Court below arrived at the finding that by way of rejoinder the respondents have only controverted the averments made in the reply and it cannot be said that the new facts have been pleaded by them. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioners/non-applicants has been rejected. Hence, this petition.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the re