ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner tenant before the learned Rent Tribunal, has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 21.07.2016 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Barmer allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent landlord and directing eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises. 2. Shri R.K. Thanvi, learned Sr. Counsel submits that though the findings of the courts below have been challenged on various grounds, however, at this stage, and reserving the petitioner's right to challenge all such findings at a later stage, he urges that the impugned appellate tribunal's judgment liable to be set aside for the solitary reason that during the pendency of appeal, an application (Annexure-7) had been preferred by the petitioner tenant under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act and the appellate court, while considering such application by its order dated 10.12.2015, directed that the application shall be decided with the appeal. The appellate court, vide its judgment dated 21.07.2016, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, however, the above mentioned application preferred by the petitioner, was left undecided. Thus, relying on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Prem Chand & Ors. v. Ghisi Bai & Ors, reported in 2012(1) RLW 220 (Raj.), Shri Thanvi contends that the judgment of the appellate court is bad in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration and disposal of the appeal as well as the application of the petitioner as per law. 3. Shri Sharad Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondents is not in a position to controvert the fact that the appellate court did not decide the petitioner's application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act while deciding the appeal. 4. On going through the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2016, in reference to the order sheet dated 10.12.2015, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the appellate court omitted to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act during pendency of the appeal despite noting earlier that the application shall be considered and decided with the appeal. Thus, the judgment of the Rent Appellate Tribunal suffers from this material shortcoming. 5. Considered in light of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Chand (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2016 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 6. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.07.2016 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Barmer is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Rent Appellate Tribunal to hear the arguments advanced by the parties afresh and to decide the appeal of the respondent Mohanlal afresh. While doing so, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act shall also be decided on merits. The matter, upon remand, shall be disposed of as far as possible within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Stay application stands disposed of.