JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.02.2020, passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 09/2020, whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Tribunal upheld the order dated 02.12.2019, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan), in Case No. 02/2019, wherein the application filed by the objectors-petitioners under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97, 101 and 104 CPC in the execution application of the decree dated 16.01.2016, was rejected.

2. Shorn of the facts, the property in question was rented out by Late Shri. Balkishan, father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to Late Shri. Jamnalal and Late Shri. Banshidhar on 15.02.1949, on a monthly rent of Rs.5/-. However, even after the death Shri. Jamnalal and Shri. Banshidhar, their family members continued to reside in the said premise but were neither paying the rent nor were delivering the possession of the property.

3. Thus, a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Shri. Jitendra Bohra and Shri. Shyam Sunder Bohra against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 Shri. Gordhan Lal, Smt. Prem Devi, Shri. Sanjay, Shri. Manish and Shri. Ashok before the learned Rent Tribunal, under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2001’), on the grounds of material damage being caused to the premise, sub-letting, nuisance and for arrears of rent.

4. The said eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 16.01.2016 and an eviction decree was passed thereof in favour of the plaintiffs-landlords-respondent No.1 and 2 herein, on the grounds of substantial damage to the property, sub-letting and denial of title of the landlords. The said decree attained finality as it was not challenged by any of the defendants.

5. During the execution of the decree dated 16.01.2016, anapplication under Order 21 Rule 97,101 and 104 CPC read with Section 47 CPC came to be filed by the present petitioners, wherein the petitioners raised objections to the execution of decree on the grounds that the petitioners are successors of Late Shri. Vimal Kumar Sethi, who was the son of Late Shri. Bhagwan Das and grandson of Late Shri. Banshidhar, and thus, since Late Shri. Vimal Kumar Sethi was not made a party to the suit, therefore, the decree dated 16.01.2016 cannot be executed against the legal heirs of Late Shri. Vimal Kumar Sethi. It was further contended that since they were not a party to the suit proceedings, therefore the said decree cannot be executed against the applicants-petitioners.

6. The learned Rent Tribunal considered the said objections of the applicants-petitioners. However, vide order dated 02.12.2019, the objections as raised by the applicants were rejected by the learned Tribunal.

7. Against the order dated 02.12.2019, an appeal came to be filed by the present petitioners, before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, wherein vide order dated 24.02.2020, the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 02.12.2019 was upheld.

8. Aggrieved by the orders dated 02.12.2019 and 24.02.2020, the present writ petition has been filed.

9. The case set up by the petitioners is that the property in dispute was in the co-tenancy of Late Shri. Jamnalal and Late Shri. Bansidhar. Further, Shri. Bansidhar had three sons namely Ramdas, Bhagwandas and Radha Mohan. The present petitioners are successors of Shri Bhagwandas, who is the father-in-law of petitioner No.1 and grandfather of petitioner No.2 and 3.

9.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the death of Shri. Jamnalal and Shri. Bansidhar, their successors were jointly living in the tenanted property in question and were peacefully enjoying the occupation of the premise. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of Section 2(i) of the Act