[2025:RJ-JP:36966]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10357/2018

1. Smt. Lata Askandani (Deceased) through LRs

1/1. Shankar Askandani

1/2. Hitesh

1/3. Piyush Askandani, All Resident of 76 MPB, Mahaveer Nagar First, Kota (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus Sarita Mehta D/o Prem Mehta, Through Power Of Attorney Sh. Prem Kumar Mehta S/o Joharilal Mehta, R/o 23-A, Ballabh Nagar, Kota Raj.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Adil JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

11/09/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal by which the order passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 08.08.2007 has been modified and the rent has been increased in light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Sarita Mehta Versus Smt. Lata Askandani while deciding S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1565/2009 on 08.08.2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondent for determination of rent, the said application was decided by the Rent Tribunal, Kota vide its judgment dated 08.08.2007 in favour of the landlord-respondent and the rent of the premises was revised. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment was assailed by the petitioner before the Rent Appellate Tribunal (for short “RAA”) which was partly allowed by the RAA vide order dated 26.05.2008 against which a writ petition was submitted by the respondents bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1565/2009 and the same remained pending before this Court for considerable long time and in the meantime an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondent for eviction of the petitioners and the same was rejected, against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the RAA and the same was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2014 and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner against which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4650/2015 was submitted by the petitioners before this Court, wherein an interim order was passed on 27.05.2015 and during pendency of the said petition, the parties have settled their dispute by entering into compromise on 23.12.2015 and in terms of the compromise, the possession of the subject premises was handed over to the respondent by the petitioners on 23.12.2015 itself and all dues of arrears etc. were cleared and there was no outstanding due against the petitioners and these facts were narrated in the documents about taking possession of the subject premises and the possession letter was bearing the signatures of both the petitioner as well as of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier writ petition submitted by the respondent before this Court, i.e., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1565/2009 came up for hearing after the above proceedings on 08.08.2017 and the same was disposed of in light of the Division Bench’s judgment passed in the case of Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Ravinder Singh & Anr. while deciding D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13989/2009 vide order dated 20.07.2017 and on the basis of the same, the order dated 26.05.2008 passed by the RAA was quashed and set-aside and accordingly, the matter was remitted to the RAA to re-hear and re-decide the appeal on its merits. Learned counsel submits that with the strength of the aforesaid order, the Rent Appellate Tribunal has disposed of the appeal submitted by the petitioners and the rent was enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no reason or occasion available with the Rent Appellate Tribunal to pass the order impugned. Learned counsel submits that, under the changed circumstances, the parties have settled their dispute and possession of the rental premises was handed ove