ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : "1. The record of the case may kindly be called. 2. The judgments & decree dated 12.8.2010 & 14.12.2012 annexure 5 & 6 passed Application No.104/2007 & Appeal No.58/2010 by the learned respondent No.3 & 2 respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside." 2. The issue in the present writ petition is that of rent control of property under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2001"), whereby the respondents-plaintiffs preferred an application under Section 9(1) of the Act of the 2001 against the petitioner, for eviction of the tenants from leased premises, to use the said premises for residential purposes stating expiry of rent agreement and lack of alternate accommodation, and notices for the same were also issued. 3. The petitioner sought the reliefs from the learned courts below, but the findings of both the learned courts below were in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent agreement was entered into between petitioner-Late Shri Bhanwarlal, through LRs and Late Shri Ratan Singh and Late Shri Hari Singh, and while the LR's of the latter have been taken on record, the LR's of the former, Late Shri Ratan Singh, have not been taken on record, despite having a stake in the property in question. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned courts below dealt with the said contention by holding that Late Shri Ratan Singh shifted to Udaipur, with his family since the past 40-50 years and through inaction and lack of expression of interest, did not intend to seek share in property in question. 4.2. Learned counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seshambal (Dead) Through LRs v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors. 4.2. Learned counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seshambal (Dead) Through LRs v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 470 , and submits that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated its decision in Hasmat Rai and Another v. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCC 103 and held that if on death of the petitioners in the original eviction petition, their right to seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement for the demised premises became extinct and no order could, on the basis of any such requirement, be passed, and also observed that the rent amount be revised accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the petition, relied upon the precedent law laid down in Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. M/s. Traders & Agencies & Anr. 1996 DNJ (SC) 403 and Allimuddin v. Chandrika Prasad & Ors., 1996 (1) RLW Raj. 289, and submits that in the said judgments, it was held that a bonafide requirement of the landlord would be a valid ground for eviction of tenant from rented premises. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the reasoning of the learned courts below, as to impleadment of the legal representatives of Late Shri Ratan Singh being a non-requirement since he has through no action expressed any interest in acquiring or seeking share in the property in question, and that 40-50 years have also passed since then, is sound. 6.1. This Court also finds that the petitioner's claim to the effect that the bonafide requirement of the landlord, despite existing at the time of the institution of the suit, does not exist at present, does not induce confidence of this Court, due to the prolonged litigation. 6.2. On examining the evidence available on record, particularly the landlord, it is clear that there is a consistency in the bonafide necessity of the landlord wanting to shift into his parental dwelling property at Jodhpur. The brother not coming in the evidence, in these peculiar circumstances, is not having any ramifications on the outcome of the case. Moreover, litigation, any further, at such a belated stage, does not make out a case so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The brother not coming in the evidence, in these peculiar circumstances, is not having any ramifications on the outcome of the case. Moreover, litigation, any further, at such a belated stage, does not make out a case so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 6.3. The precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. 6.4. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the concurrent orders impugned passed by both the learned courts below are valid and just. 6.5. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.