ORDER 1. This petition is directed against order dated 8.7.14 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 8.1.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, resisting the execution of the certificate for recovery of possession issued by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the first respondent filed a suit for eviction before the civil court of competent jurisdiction against the tenant, the petitioners' father late Shri Nathulal Parashar, under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. However, after coming into force of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001'), the suit was withdrawn by the first respondent in terms of provisions of Section 32 of the Act of 2001 with liberty to file petition for eviction under the Act of 2001. The petitioners' father Shri Nathu Lal died and thereafter, the first respondent filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara under the Act of 2001 impleading the family members of late Shri Nathu Lal, who were ordinarily residing with him upto his death as party respondents. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement of the premises, material alteration and availability of suitable premises adequate for the requirement of the tenant. The petitioners herein were not impleaded as party to the proceedings. 3. The petition was contested by the respondents therein by filing a reply taking the stand inter alia that since all the legal heirs of late Shri Nathu Lal have not been impleaded as party respondents, the petition suffers from vice of non joinder of necessary party. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues. The issue framed with regard to maintainability of the suit inter alia on the ground of non joinder of all the legal heirs of late Shri Nathu Lal as party to the proceedings, reads as under: ^^¼6½ D;k eafnj dk VªLV jftLVMZ ugh gksus o ukFkw yky ds LkHkh okfjlks dks i{kdkj u cukus ds dkj.k vthZ pyus ;ksX; ugh gS\^^ 5. The issue no.6 framed as aforesaid was decided by the Rent Tribunal in favour of the first respondent and against the respondents therein. The petition for eviction was allowed by the Rent Tribunal on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement and accordingly, the certificate for recovery of possession was issued in favour of the first respondent. 6. The petitioners herein preferred an application under Order XXI Rule 97 resisting the execution of certificate for recovery of possession on the ground that they are in joint possession of the premises with other legal heirs of late Shri Nathu Lal, who were impleaded as party respondents to the petition and therefore, the certificate for recovery of possession obtained by the first respondent without impleading them as party to the proceedings is not binding upon them and for this reason, they cannot be evicted from the premises. The application was contested by the first respondent by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that in the reply to the petition filed before the Rent Tribunal, the respondents therein had taken the objection regarding other legal heirs of late Shri Nathu Lal being not impleaded as party, however, no averments were made in the petition as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Nathu Lal who were required to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. It was averred that the petitioner no.1 herein is residing separately for last 20 years in a house opposite to the premises in question and the petitioner no.2 & 3, the married daughters of deceased-Shri Nathu Lal are residing with their in-laws. The details of the place where they are ordinarily residing were also specifically set out in the reply and the documentary evidence was also submitted in support thereof. It was averred that since the petitioners herein were not in occupation of the premises as legal heirs of Shri Nathu Lal, they were not required to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. 7. It was averred that since the petitioners herein were not in occupation of the premises as legal heirs of Shri Nathu Lal, they were not required to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. 7. After due consideration the application preferred was rejected by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 8.1.14 observing that the petitioners may be the legal heirs of Shri Nathu Lal but it is not the case set out by the petitioners that they were residing with him upto his death and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 (i) (ii) of the Act of 2001, the objection raised is not tenable. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which also stands dismissed vide order dated 8.7.14. Hence, this petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Appellate Rent Tribunal and Rent Tribunal have not appreciated the provisions of Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001 in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunals have failed to take into consideration the averments made in para no. 7 of the application wherein the petitioners have categorically stated that they were occupying the premises as legal heirs of late Shri Nathu Lal being son and daughters, during his lifetime. Learned counsel submitted that in the application filed inadvertently, words ^le;^ was typed as ^Lo;a^ and in this regard, the petitioners had preferred an application for correction before the Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel urged that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in observing that the word ^Lo;a^ cannot be treated and read as ^le;^ . Learned counsel further submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunals in terms that the petitioners have nowhere stated in their application that they were residing in the rented premises with Shri Nathu Lal as his family members, is apparently erroneous and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunals have erred in relying upon the findings arrived at on issue no.6 while deciding the Rent Petition inasmuch as, the findings arrived at in this regard cannot have bearing adverse to the petitioners' right, who were not party to the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunals have erred in relying upon the findings arrived at on issue no.6 while deciding the Rent Petition inasmuch as, the findings arrived at in this regard cannot have bearing adverse to the petitioners' right, who were not party to the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that whether the petitioners were residing with late Shri Nathu Lal during his lifetime and upto his death, is a question of fact which is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties and the question in this regard could not have been decided by the Rent Tribunal summarily without determination of the question in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order XXI Rule 98 to 101 CPC. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal is ex facie violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in declining to interfere with the same. 10. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that as per the provisions of Section 2(i)(ii) of the Act of 2001, only the family members of the tenant, who were residing with him upto his death are required to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the first respondent had taken a categorical stand before the Rent Tribunal in terms that none of the petitioners were residing with the tenant-late Shri Nathu Lal during his lifetime and upto his death and therefore, they were not required to be impleaded as party to the proceedings, which has not been controverted by the petitioners by filing a counter thereto and therefore, it was absolutely not necessary to give any further opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence, which was not even claimed for. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even the case set out by the petitioners in the application preferred that they were living with their father as family members in the rented premises upto his death and therefore, in absence of specific averment in this regard, the Rent Tribunal was not required to enter into any further inquiry in the summary proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal after due consideration of the material on record, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, as per the provisions of Section 2(i)(ii) of the Act of 2001, in the event of the death of the person, who falls within the definition of 'tenant' in terms of provisions of Section 2(i)(i), in case of premises let out for residential purposes, his surving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily residing with him in such premises as members of his family upto his death, are treated to be tenant. In this view of the matter, only such family members of the deceased-tenant as specified who were ordinarily residing with him upto his death are required to be impleaded as party to the petition for eviction of the tenant. In other words, the legal heirs of deceased-tenant as specified, who were not ordinarily residing with him as members of his family upto his death, do not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as set out in Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001 and therefore, they are not required to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. 13. It is not in dispute that a objection was raised by the respondents in the rent petition in terms that all the legal heirs of the deceased-tenant, late Shri Nathu Lal, who are necessary parties, having not been impleaded as party to the proceedings, the petition filed is not maintainable. Accordingly, on the basis of the pleading of the parties, issue no.6 was framed by the Rent Tribunal in the terms indicated above. It is also not in dispute that the names of the persons, who were required to be impleaded as party to the petition, were not disclosed by the respondents therein in the reply filed. No evidence was led in this regard either. Consequently, on the basis of the material on record, the issue no.6 was decided by the Rent Tribunal in favour of the first respondent and against the respondents therein. 14. No evidence was led in this regard either. Consequently, on the basis of the material on record, the issue no.6 was decided by the Rent Tribunal in favour of the first respondent and against the respondents therein. 14. It is pertinent to note that in the application filed, the petitioners have taken the stand that they being son and daughters of the original tenant late Shri Nathu Lal, are occupying and using the premises in question. Of course, the petitioners sought to clarify the inadvertent error crept in the word ^Lo;a^ being typed instead of the word ^le;^ , but then, it is to be noticed that even in the affidavits filed by the petitioner no.1 in support of the averments made, the word ^Lo;a^ is used and not the word ^le;^ as suggested. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no specific averment made by the petitioners in terms that they were ordinarily residing with the original tenant late Shri Nathu Lal upto his death. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in reply to the application filed on behalf of the first respondent supported by an affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner no.1 is residing in the house opposite to the premises in question for last 20 years and the petitioner no.2 and 3, the married daughters of the original tenant late Shri Nathu Lal, are residing with their in-laws at the places specified. The complete residence addresses of the petitioner no.2 & 3 have been specifically mentioned in the reply to the application and even the documentary evidence i.e. copies of the voter list, ration card and photographs of the houses, was placed on record in this regard, which have not been controverted by the petitioners by filing a counter thereto. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, taking into consideration the uncontroverted factual position on record, concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal in terms that the petitioners were not ordinarily residing with the original tenant late Shri Nathu Lal during his lifetime and upto his death, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. 15. 15. Coming to the question raised by the petitioners regarding the Rent Tribunal not giving the opportunity to lead evidence to the parties and deciding the application in summary manner, it is to be noticed that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15, the Rent Tribunal is required to decide the petition filed for eviction by holding such summary inquiry as it deems necessary. Likewise, as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20, the Rent Tribunal is required to conduct the execution proceedings in relation to final order or any order passed under the Act of 2001 in summary manner and dispose of the application for execution within 45 days from the date of service of notice on opposite party. In this view of the matter, the objection sought to be raised by the petitioners that the application preferred by them could not have been disposed of by the Rent Tribunal in summary manner, is not tenable. 16. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As per provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act of 2001 and the rules made thereunder, have power to regulate their own procedure. Suffice it to say that the powers conferred upon the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal in regard to the procedure to be adopted in conducting the proceedings before it are very wide and therefore, the Rent Tribunal was not under an obligation to follow the procedure laid down under Order XXI Rules 98 to 101 as suggested by the petitioners. As a matter of fact, in the instant case, taking into consideration the uncontroverted factual position on record and the petitioners having not claimed any right to lead further evidence, the Rent Tribunal was not required to enter into a roving inquiry for determination of the objection raised. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding alleged violation of principle of natural justice, is also devoid of any merit. 17. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding alleged violation of principle of natural justice, is also devoid of any merit. 17. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, affirming the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.