[2025:RJ-JD:21876]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11288/2024 Viman Hospitility And Entertainment Private Limited, Through Its Director Vikas Lohiya Son Of Shri Poonamchand Lohiya, Aged 48 Years, Resident Of A-202, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) And Address 17, Kalpataru Shopping Center Scheme, Sector E, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus Satyen Parihar S/o Late Shri Dharmveer Parihar, Karta Dharmveer Satyen Parihar (Huf), Resident Of 157-B, Polo Second, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondent Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11245/2024 Viman Hospitility And Entertainment Private Limited, Through Its Director Vikas Lohiya Son Of Shri Poonamchand Lohiya, Aged 48 Years, Resident Of A-202, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) And Address 18, Kalpataru Shopping Center Scheme, Sector E, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Yatin Parihar S/o Shri Satyen Parihar, Karta Yatin Parihar (Huf), Resident Of 157-B, Polo Second, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

07/05/2025

1. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’), whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected petitioner’s application(s) seeking liberty to cross-examine the respondent – landlord which was filed under section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in refusing petitioner’s application for grant of right to cross-examine the respondent – landlord as the same is a right flowing from the principles of natural justice.

3. In support of his contention aforesaid, he relied upon judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aasandas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) CDR

1277.

4. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondent – landlord could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by both the parties, these writ petitions are allowed.

7. The orders dated 15.03.2024 impugned in both the writ petitions are hereby quashed and set aside.

8. The trial Court is directed to give the petitioner a liberty to cross-examine the respondents, who shall keep himself available before the trial Court for cross-examination on the next date of hearing. The respondents shall also be free to cross-examine the petitioner.

9. Further, the trial Court shall ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are given to the petitioner.

10. The stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

457- and 458-kansha/-