Suresh VS Dhruv Narayan Purohit

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Dhruv Narayan Purohit – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Vipul Jain, Advocate

ORDER

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-landlord filed a suit for eviction under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) on the ground of bonafide necessity, comparative hardship and change of user by the petitioner-tenant. Learned counsel submits that several issues were framed in the earlier round of litigation in the suit submitted by the respondents and finally the suit for eviction was rejected by the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 20.10.2018. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-landlord before the Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge No.14 Jaipur Metropolitan, however, the said appeal was also rejected vide judgment dated 24.07.2019 and the cross-objections submitted by the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal were rejected vide judgment dated 24.0