Arun Bhansali, J.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-tenants aggrieved against the judgments dated 1/2/2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro ('the Tribunal') and judgments dated 14/9/2016 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro ('the Appellate Rent Tribunal'), whereby, the petitions for eviction filed by respondent-Fayaz Ali have been accepted and the appeals filed by the petitioners have been dismissed, respectively.

2. Three petitions for eviction were filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 9(a) and 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act, 2001') inter alia with the averments that the property in the name of 'Lal Khan Building' is situated at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur wherein the petitioners Dinesh Kumar, Bheekam Chand and Mool Chand were tenants in shops on.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The shops were let out 40 years back to late Asan Das father of Dinesh Kumar, Narsingh father of Bheekam Chand and to Mool Chand and they were in possession of the shops. It was indicated that the shops were on monthly tenancy of Rs.135/-, Rs.60/- and Rs.85/- respectively. The last rent of the shops in question was paid on 31/3/2012 for the period 1/5/2011 to 31/3/2012, where after, the rent was neither offered nor tendered despite requiring the petitioners to pay the same. When the rent was not paid despite demand, registered notices were sent to the petitioners through counsel on 19/8/2014 requiring the petitioners to deposit the due rent in the bank account of the landlord. Notices were duly served on the petitioners, to which a response was given through counsel on 15/9/2014 denying the landlord-tenant relationship. It was alleged that the petitioners have committed default in payment of rent, the premises was required by the landlord for his two sons Imran Ali and Irfan Ali.

3. Based on the above averments, it was submitted that the petitioners have committed default in payment of rent and were liable to be evicted in terms of the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act.

4. A response to the petitions for eviction was filed by the petitioners on 9/1/2015 after the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of service along with an application seeking condonation of delay and for taking the reply on record.

5. The Tribunal by order dated 20/2/2015 directed for taking the reply on record on payment of cost of Rs.500/- each and it was ordered that if the cost was paid on the next date, the reply would be taken on record otherwise the same would be placed in 'D' part of the record.

6. When the cost was not paid, by order dated 6/7/2015, the Tribunal ordered for keeping the reply in 'D' part. In the meanwhile, the landlord had filed replication to the reply along with certain documents which were marked as Exhibits 7 to 16. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by its judgments dated 1/2/2016 came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the submission that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties as there was no reply or affidavit on record and in the receipt Ex.1 the name of owner Thekedar Ahsan Ali Ramzan Ali was indicated and applicant Fayaz Ali is son of Ahsan Ali and it is well settled law that a co-owner can file a petition for eviction, the landlord-tenant relationship was established. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that despite notice the due rent of more than four months was not paid and, therefore, on account of default in payment of rent, the petitioners were liable to be evicted.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the Appellate Rent Tribunal by its judgments dated 14/9/2016 upheld the judgments passed by the Tribunal on coming to the conclusion that Fayaz Ali being co-owner was entitled to file the petitions. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, upheld the order passed by the Tribunal placing the reply in part 'D' for non-payment of cost on coming to the conclusion that afte