##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:47403]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1740/2024 CNR: RJHC010090482024 | URN: CW / 3767U / 2024 Upendra Kapoor S/o Late Shri H.s. Kapoor, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 134, 1-A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Vandana W/o Dr. Gyanendra Singh, Resident Of 96, Polo, Mandore Road, Jodhpur

2. Navratan Raj Bhandari S/o Shri Jaswant Raj, Resident Of

33, Ashok Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur

3. Smt. Santosh Bhandari W/o Shri Navratan Raj Bhandari, Resident Of 33, Ashok Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur

4. Smt. Preeti Bhandari W/o Ajay Bhandari, Resident Of 33, Ashok Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur

5. Smt. Snehal Jain W/o Sanjay Jain, Resident Of 33, Ashok Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Siddiqui Ms. Heena Siddiqui For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable-

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 14/07/2026 DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 14/07/2026 FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/10/2026 BY THE COURT:-

CHALLENGE

1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the application preferred by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 2001”) came to be allowed and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were impleaded as petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 in the proceedings.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The concise facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question since 01.09.2004 under a Rent Agreement executed by the father of respondent No.1. After inheriting the property, respondent No.1 instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioner in the year 2013 on the ground of her own use and occupation. During the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent No.1 sold the premises to respondent Nos.2 to 5, who thereafter sought their impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001. The petitioner opposed the application, inter alia, contending that the ground of personal use pleaded by the original landlord was personal to her and could not be pursued by the subsequent purchasers. The learned Rent Tribunal, however, vide order dated 29.11.2023, allowed the application and impleaded respondent Nos.2 to 5 as parties in the eviction proceedings, which order has been assailed in the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 is ex-facie contrary to law, as the subsequent purchasers cannot step into the shoes of the original landlord and continue eviction proceedings instituted on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. It is contended that the ground of own use and occupation is personal to the landlord who instituted the proceedings and, therefore, the subsequent purchasers cannot pursue the same cause without establishing an independent ground for eviction.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the answering respondents, being subsequent purchasers of the premises, have stepped into the shoes of the predecessor-in-title and are entitled to continue the eviction proceedings initiated by the erstwhile landlord. It was further submitted that the proceedings were instituted under Section 106 of the Transfer of Prop