ORDER :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

These writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7689/2023:-

"(I). The impugned order dated 02.05.2023 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Petition No.59/2004 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The application dated 17.01.2023 (Annex.2) preferred by the petitioner-applicant under Order 32, Rule 1 and 15 r/w section 151 CPC may kindly be allowed and the petitioner Tejmal may kindly be allowed to be represented by his son Rajendra Jain as Next Friend in the pending Rent Petition No.59/2004 titles as Chandmal v. Ashok Kumar and ors.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the tenant and is facing proceeding under Section 9(a) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001. The common factor in these three writ petitions is that petitioner-defendant no.1 has moved an application under Order 32, Rule 1 and 15 read with Section 151 CPC on dated 17.01.2023 through his next friend son Rajendra Jain seeking an opportunity to submit his evidence instead of petitioner-Tejmal, who is suffering from Parkinson disease, as per the certificate of Medical Board of the Government Hospital.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though there is a slight delay on the part of the petitioner in moving such application, but in the interest of justice, one last opportunity may be given to render his evidence on the next date itself in all three matters.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that there is a dilly-dallying tactics, which has been adopted by the petitioner, who is tenant and wants to avoid the eviction. He further submits that most of the evidence has been completed, as petitioner-Tejmal had partly rendered his evidence before the learned trial court and substitution of his son Rajendra Jain as next friend to render the evidence is not warranted and learned trial court has also denied it.

5. This Court while considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the respondent, while citing the judgment of Kasturi Bai and Ors. v. Anguri Chaudhary in Civil Appeal No.818/2001 decided on 05.02.2003, finds that the same cannot be accepted because though the Hon'ble Apex Court has said that in case required state of mind could be inquired into but here in the present case where there is a clear certificate of the medical board of a Government Hospital, in the opinion of this Court, there is no further need of any kind of inquiry; further any kind of pendency of this case will unnecessary result into the prolonged agony of both the parties, who are also from the same family.

6. Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and in the fitness of the things and while keeping into consideration the opinion of the medical board of the Government Hospital, this Court directs that one last opportunity be given to petitioner-Tejmal through his son Rajendra Jain as Next Friend to render his evidence on the next date before the learned trial court. It is made clear that since the medical record indicates Parkinson disease and same has been affirmed by the competent medical board of the Government Hospital, no further confirmation of medical condition is called for. However, no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioner for leading such evidence. The learned Tribunal is further directed to de