[2025:RJ-JP:26096]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.884/2024 Vimal Chand Surana S/o Late Seth Shri Rajmal Surana, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Lal Katla, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. Omprakash Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 94, Shyam Path, Nemisgar Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Govind Sharan Agarwal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 94, Shyam Path, Nemisgar Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Deceased During Appeal)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Avi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Palak Saraswat for Mr. Sarvesh Saraswat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

14/07/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”) by which the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has been quashed and set- aside and the matter has been remitted for its fresh disposal for deciding the issue that whether the Rent Eviction Application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was maintainable or not in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Eviction Application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted against the respondents with the averment that the subject shop was let out to the father of the respondents and after the death of the respondents’ father, they were not carrying out the business in the said premises, hence, they became encroachers upon the same. Learned counsel submits that the landlord-tenant relationship was not disputed by the respondents before the Rent Tribunal rather the respondents came with a case that after the death of their father, they are carrying out business in the subject shop. Learned counsel submits that after considering these facts and averments available on record, the Rent Tribunal held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and, thereafter, the application filed by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need was allowed, which was assailed by the respondents by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the said appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was submitted by the respondents for framing of additional issues, including the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submits that the said application submitted by the respondents was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2023 and the additional issues were not framed. Learned counsel submits that now going contrary to the order dated 16.12.2023, the Appellate Tribunal has remitted the matter to the Rent Tribunal vide impugned order dated 06.01.2024 to decide the issue whether the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was maintainable or not in view of Section 18 of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submits that once this fact has been established on record that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the question of jurisdiction of Tribunal will not come into play, hence, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that this was the precise case of the petitioner and no one but the petitioner himself disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioner never accepted the respondents as their tenants