The court established that a valid tenant-landlord relationship must be evidenced by clear documentation and payment history, which was lacking in this case.

Judgment

1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and by an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction:-

i. by an appropriate writ order or direction, an Order dated 25.07.2022 (Annex.6) and 21.10.2022 (Annex.8) may be declared declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, an objection petition (Annex.1) may kindly be allowed.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems appropriate and genuine may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners".

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner acquired the disputed premises in the year 1974 from one Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Ramdeo as a partner of partnership firm. The petitioner paid the monthly rent of the disputed premises to Smt. Bhanwari Devi, and after her death, the monthly rent had been given to Shri Ashok kumar (husband of the respondent).

2.1 The respondent has however, filed an eviction petition under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001'), stating therein that one plot bearing no.6 at Paota 'C' Road, Jodhpur was let out on monthly rent to Late Shri Sawai Singh, and that, the said Late Shri Sawai Singh did not pay rent from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2015 (of total sum of Rs. 21,600/- for 12 Months).

2.2. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal issued notice of the said eviction petition to the said Late Shri Sawai Singh, but he failed to get himself represented before the learned Tribunal; whereafter, the learned Tribunal passed an ex parte eviction order on 20.10.2015 against Late Shri Sawai Singh. Subsequently, the execution petition has been filed, and the learned Executing Court vide order dated 16.09.2016 proceeded ex-parte against Late Shri Sawai Singh.

2.3. The petitioner immediately moved an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 21 Rules 97 & 98 and Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC before the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur with a prayer that he may not be evicted from the disputed premises in question, as no opportunity of hearing, before passing of the eviction order, was afforded to him as a tenant. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2016 passed ad-interim order and restrained the respondent from evicting the petitioner. The petitioner moved another application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 for cross-examination of the respondent, but the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

2.3.1. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 2296/2019, but the same was withdrawn on 02.05.2019 with liberty to raise all objections before the appropriate forum.

2.4. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 21 Rules 97 & 98 and Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC; against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellant Rent Tribunal (Appellant Authority), which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several documents have been produced before the learned courts below, showing the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties in regard to the disputed premises in question, and that, the petitioner has always been willing and ready to pay rent to the landlord.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has sent a legal notice as well as money order to the respondent but she intentionally did not receive the due rent and denied the tenant-landlord relationship between