JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 8 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent - Kumawat Samaj Rajsamand ('Samaj') through its Secretary Bheru Lal and President Trilok filed an original application seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, which was accepted by the Rent Tribunal. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand; during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order I, Rule 8 CPC, inter alia, alleging that the suit was filed by Samaj having thousands of members and the suit was filed in representative capacity, which should have been filed after seeking permission under Order I, Rule 8 CPC; the petitioner filed an appeal based on the cause title as contained before the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand and did not care regarding the said fact; during course of the preparation of submissions the said fact came to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner that in the appeal procedure under Order I, Rule 8 CPC should be adopted so that the entire Samaj can be bound by the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and sought publication of notice under Order I, Rule 8 CPC. 4. The respondents filed reply to the application and denied the averments made in the application; it was submitted that the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal were not filed in the representative capacity and, once the suit has not been filed in the representative capacity, the appeal cannot be converted into a representative capacity; the averments made in the application that both the office bearers of Samaj have died was factually incorrect; while the Secretary - Bheru Lal had died and in his place Kamlesh has been appointed and summons were issued to said Kamlesh on whose behalf Vakalatnama has been filed; other objections were also raised in the reply, inter alia, indicating that the petitioner was seeking to delay the disposal of the appeal by filing frivolous applications and, therefore, the same deserve to be dismissed with heavy costs. 5. 5. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that Samaj was a registered Society and the suit has not been filed in the representative capacity and there was no reason to allow application under Order I, Rule 8 CPC at the appellate stage; the Appellate Rent Tribunal directed that the names of the present Secretary and President may be indicated in the cause title of the appeal and, consequently, dismissed the application. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner; it was submitted that the suit was filed on behalf of Samaj and the respondents committed mistake in not undertaking proceedings under Order I, Rule 8 CPC and the petitioner did not want to commit the same mistake while prosecuting his appeal and, therefore, the application was filed by the petitioner and the Appellate Rent Tribunal for no apparent reason has dismissed the application, which was bona fidely filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and referred to the order-sheet of the same date indicating that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has directed indication of names of the present Secretary and President by way of red ink in the cause title; the Secretary Kamlesh was also issued notice by Appellate Rent Tribunal and, so far as the original President was concerned, he was still around, however, the present President was ordered to be impleaded as party; it was submitted that the suit was filed by the Samaj as landlord and there was no occasion for them to file application under Order I, Rule 8 CPC and the present application during pendency of the appeal has been filed by the petitioner merely with a view to complicate and delay the disposal of the appeal and, consequently, same deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The proceedings before the Rent Tribunal were initiated by the Samaj through its Secretary and President; the petitioner raised objections regarding the status of the said President and Secretary and issue No. 5 was framed by the Rent Tribunal in this regard and was decided against the petitioner; at no stage the petitioner raised any objection regarding applicability and non-compliance of provisions of Order I, Rule 8 CPC before the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal decided the proceedings as initiated by the Samaj ordering eviction of the petitioner from the suit property. 10. The appeal in the present case was filed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal way back in the year 2010 and after a passage of over 5 years now it has dawned on the petitioner that procedure under Order I, Rule 8 CPC should have been adopted by the respondents and, in any case, the petitioner should undertake the said procedure and has chosen to file the application for the said purpose. 11. Besides the fact that no plea regarding the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal having been filed in the representative capacity was raised by the petitioner at any stage, the adoption of the procedure at the appellate stage is wholly unnecessary and against the material available on record, whereby, admittedly the proceedings have been initiated by the Samaj through its President and Secretary and nowhere the reference has been made regarding filing of the proceedings in the representative capacity and, in view thereof, no interference is called for in the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 12. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******