IMPORTANT POINT
In an eviction suit, only the landlord and tenant are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act and established legal principles.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Impugned order dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Udaipur may Kindly be quashed and set aside by allowing the Application of the Petitioner submitted before learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur as prayed for.

2. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

2 Brief facts of the case are that an application (Annexure-1) under section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was filed for eviction of the premise situated at House No. 512, Panchratna Complex, Road No. 1, Udaipur against Late Smt Amita Prakash by respondent No. 1 Arjundas Khatri with the averments that late Smt Amita Prakash is the tenant of the premises in question and rent of Rs. 18,500/- was agreed between the parties orally. Thereafter a rent agreement was executed on 1.04.2005 and the tenancy for the premises was decided for a period of 5 years. Thereafter a notice dated 14.10.2014 was served on Late Smt. Amita Prakash for vacation of the premises in dispute. The said notice was returned back by the post with the remark that the address of the notice was not found thus vide notice dated 31.01.2015 the tenancy was terminated by respondent No. 1.

3. Thereafter, non-applicant/Late Amita Prakash submitted a reply (Annexure-2) to the rent application and denied all the contentions therein and stated that the application is barred by non joinder of UN Automobiles and thereafter non-applicant/Late Amita Prakash prayed to dismiss the rent application. Applicant respondent No. 1 filed a rejoinder (Annexure-3) to the reply. Thereafter the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur framed five issues dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure-4).

4. Furthermore, Late Smt. Amita Prakash filed the writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 13838/2016 against respondent No. 1 challenging order dated 15.10.2016 whereby the learned Presiding Officer Rent Tribunal Udaipur rejected the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC which is pending consideration before this Court. That during the pendency of the writ petition Smt Amita Prakash died on 13.07.2021.

5. The petitioner company through Director Suresh Salvi filed an application (Annexure-6) dated 08.11.2023 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 read with Order 1 rule 10 CPC stating therein that it may be made a party to the suit as respondent No. 1 filed an eviction application against only late Smt. Amita Prakash the erstwhile Director of the Company and not against the present petitioner Company the U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. which paid security amount of Rs. 96,000/- for the rent which proves that the petitioner company is a tenant and therefore it was a joint tenancy of late Smt. Amita Prakash and the petitioner company.

6. The respondent No. 1 submitted reply dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure-7) to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner. The Senior Civil Judge Rent Tribunal, Udaipur dismissed the application dated 08.11.2023 filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure-8). Being aggrieved of the order dated 02.12.2023, the petitioner prefers the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Learned Rent Tribunal wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner Company is not a necessary party to the suit without considering the material available on record as have not considered the fact that the respondent No. 1-landlord has himself agreed that the rent agreement was between him and late Smt. Amita Prakash who is representing the company and thus the Company U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is a necessary party to the suit and without impleading it as a party no effec