ORDER :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed.

2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 13.4.2022 (Annx.11) accepting respondent No.1's application for eviction of rented premises may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, that one Vijay Singh, claiming himself to be the attorney of Shri Baldeo Singh Bhati s/o Ram Singh Bhati filed an eviction application under Section 9 clauses (i), (j) and (m) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001') against Gyan Singh Solanki (Tenant) - father of the present petitioner, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur, mainly on the ground that the eviction applicant wished to establish a Charitable Hospital, for which he had reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises in question.

2.1. During pendency of the said eviction application, Gyan Singh Solanki died on 22.02.2014, and accordingly, his legal representatives (present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein) were brought on record before the learned Rent Tribunal.

2.2. Thereafter on 17.09.2018, the respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 along with Order 22, Rule 10 CPC before the learned Rent Tribunal for substituting his name as applicant in place of Baldev Singh Bhati (original applicant) stating therein that the rented premises had been purchased by him. The present petitioner filed reply to the said application. The learned Rent Tribunal, however, vide order 20.07.2018, allowed the said application.

2.3. The learned Rent Tribunal proceeded with the trial and after hearing all the parties, allowed the eviction application vide order dated 10.02.2020, against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001 against the eviction order dated 13.04.2022 before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal; the same was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2022; aggrieved thereby, the present petitions have been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Section 21 of the Act of 2001 nor Order 22, Rule 10 CPC deal with substitution of the parties, and therefore, the said provisions of law do not empower the learned Rent Tribunal to substitute one party in place of the other; thus, as per learned counsel, the entire proceeding in question is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.1's substitution in place of the original applicant- Baldev Singh Bhati has enlarged the very scope of the proceeding in question, thereby, changed the entire case.

3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned finding regarding the alternative accommodation in favour of the respondent no.1 was passed without any evidence, and that, the evidence produced by the respondent no.1 also does not support his case for eviction.

3.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments-:

a) Sonu Babu Bhambid & Ors. v. Dream Developers & Ors (2009) 17 SCC 124;

b) Sugani (Mst) v. Rmeshwar Das & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 587;

c) S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand AIR 1968 SC 438;

d) Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by Lrs. & Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1320 of