JUDGMENT :

1. The matters were listed on the second stay applications. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments in the main petitions were heard finally, and the same are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7131/2022:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) quash the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Churu in Rent Petition No.05/2017; and

(ii) the impleadment application filed by the petitioner Under Section 21 of Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. may be allowed with costs in toto; and

(iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the fact and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioner; and

(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7133/2022:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) quash the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Churu in Rent Petition No.04/2017; and

(ii) the impleadment application filed by the petitioner Under Section 21 of Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. may be allowed with costs in toto; and

(iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the fact and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioner; and

(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.”

3. Since both instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being taken from the above-numbered SBCWP No.7131/2022, while treating the same as a lead case.

4. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in SBCWP No.7131/2022, are that the respondent no.1 filed an original rent application under Sections 6, 9 (a) (b) (d) (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2001’) against the respondent no.2 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Churu, seeking eviction of the respondent no.2 from the rent premises (Nohra admeasuring 45 x 35 feet), situated near Railway Station, Churu (towards Western side of Lohiya Mahavidhyalaya), on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting, nuisance, as also on count of his (respondent No.1’s) reasonable and bonafide necessity in respect of the premises in question. As alleged in the eviction application, the subletting of the premises in question was done by the respondent no.2 in favour of Mahaveer Prasad (father of the present petitioner), without seeking prior consent of the landlord (respondent no.1 herein). The learned Rent Tribunal thereafter, proceeded with the trial of the case, during the course of which, statements of the respondent no.1 and his witnesses were recorded.

4.1. The petitioner upon coming to know about filing of the aforementioned eviction application by the respondent No.1, immediately moved an impleadment application on 01.03.2019 under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as party defendant in the aforesaid eviction case; whereupon, the respondent no. 1 filed reply to the said impleadment application on 01.06.2019.

4.2 As regards, the above-numbered SBCWP No.7133/2022, pertaining to the same subject matter i.e. another eviction application (in respect of other premises -Nohra admeasuring 25 x 35 feet, situated at the same location) preferred by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2 before the learned Tribunal on the very same grounds, the petitioner preferred an impleadment