JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner is challenging validity of order dated 14.2.2013 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand whereby the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. by the respondent-applicant, who is the real brother of the applicant was allowed. 4. It is emerges from the facts that the property in question belongs to Late Madhav Lal father of petitioner and applicant Kailash Chandra for which a suit for partition is pending where the rights in the property of the parties are yet to be decided. Therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal while taking into account the fact of pendency of suit for partition and the judgment rendered in 2008(2) DNJ page No. 581, Hari Kishan v. Santosh allowed the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. by the respondent applicant. 5. In the opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the learned Rent Tribunal in passing the order impugned because admittedly the rights of parties in the property in question are yet to be decided in the suit for partition. 6. In view of above facts, no case is made out for interference. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******