JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“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 31.05.2023 (Annexure7) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Application No.50/2008; and

(ii) the impleadment application filed by the petitioner Under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. dated 29.05.2019 (Annex.5) may be allowed with costs in toto; and

(iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the facts 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.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1-landlord (since deceased, represented through his LRs) filed an eviction petition under Section 9 (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara against the respondent no.2-tenant.

2.1. During pendency of the aforesaid eviction petition, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for being impleaded as party in the said eviction petition. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 27.08.2018, rejected the said application; aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing S.B.C.W.P. No.1295/2019 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of on 25.01.2019, while giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application.

2.2. The petitioner again filed an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) before the learned Rent Tribunal in aforementioned eviction petition, and stated that earlier the eviction petition was filed by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2, wherein the petitioner filed an impleadment application and the same was allowed on 27.01.2010 and the petitioner was impleaded as party by the learned Rent Tribunal. Therefore, in the eviction petition in question also, the petitioner is a necessary party. The learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, rejected the said impleadment application of the petitioner. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the respondent no.1 filed an eviction petition against the respondent no.2 and in the said petition, the petitioner filed an impleadment application, which was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal, therefore, in the subsequent eviction petition also, the petitioner is a necessary party.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that once the petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as in the earlier eviction petition between the same parties, then in present eviction petition also, the petitioner is a necessary party for fair and effective adjudication of the petition in question.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that a civil suit for partition regarding the property in question is also pending and the petitioner is a party in the said civil suit.

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a necessary party as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for proper and effective adjudication of the eviction petition in question, but the learned Court below without considering the said vital aspect, rejected the impleadment application of the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the eviction petition was filed pertaining to another shop rented out to one Kailash Chandra Kalya, wherein the petitioner filed an impleadment application before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhi