ORDER : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed. 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 13.4.2022 (Annx.11) accepting respondent No.1's application for eviction of rented premises may kindly be quashed and set aside." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, that one Vijay Singh, claiming himself to be the attorney of Shri Baldeo Singh Bhati s/o Ram Singh Bhati filed an eviction application under Section 9 clauses (i), (j) and (m) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001') against Gyan Singh Solanki (Tenant) - father of the present petitioner, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur, mainly on the ground that the eviction applicant wished to establish a Charitable Hospital, for which he had reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises in question. 2.1. During pendency of the said eviction application, Gyan Singh Solanki died on 22.02.2014, and accordingly, his legal representatives (present petitioner as well as respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein) were brought on record before the learned Rent Tribunal. 2.2. Thereafter on 17.09.2018, the respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 along with Order 22, Rule 10 CPC before the learned Rent Tribunal for substituting his name as applicant in place of Baldev Singh Bhati (original applicant) stating therein that the rented premises had been purchased by him. The present petitioner filed reply to the said application. The learned Rent Tribunal, however, vide order 20.07.2018, allowed the said application. 2.3. The learned Rent Tribunal proceeded with the trial and after hearing all the parties, allowed the eviction application vide order dated 10.02.2020, against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001 against the eviction order dated 13.04.2022 before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal; the same was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2022; aggrieved thereby, the present petitions have been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. 2 to 6 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001 against the eviction order dated 13.04.2022 before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal; the same was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2022; aggrieved thereby, the present petitions have been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Section 21 of the Act of 2001 nor Order 22, Rule 10 CPC deal with substitution of the parties, and therefore, the said provisions of law do not empower the learned Rent Tribunal to substitute one party in place of the other; thus, as per learned counsel, the entire proceeding in question is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.1's substitution in place of the original applicant- Baldev Singh Bhati has enlarged the very scope of the proceeding in question, thereby, changed the entire case. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned finding regarding the alternative accommodation in favour of the respondent no.1 was passed without any evidence, and that, the evidence produced by the respondent no.1 also does not support his case for eviction. 3.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments-: a) Sonu Babu Bhambid & Ors. v. Dream Developers & Ors (2009) 17 SCC 124 ; b) Sugani (Mst) v. Rmeshwar Das & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 587 ; c) S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand AIR 1968 SC 438 ; d) Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by Lrs. & Anr. v. National Engineering Industry Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2005 decided on 17.09.2009), by the Hon'ble Apex Court; e) Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjit Kaur (1987) 3 SCC 711 ; f) Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr (2011) 2 SCC 532 ; g) Nand Kishore v. Ramesh Gidwani (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12125/2012 decided on 12.09.2013) by a Coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court; h) Ramkrishna Mission v. Sagarmoy Dey (CRP No. 357 of 2007 decided on 20.01.2014) passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati; i) Shriram & Ors. v. Suresh Kumar (Dead), through Legal Representative & Anr. (Second Appeal No. 195 of 2008, decided on 26.05.2020), passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh; and j) Sri. Kempahanumaiah v. M/s Allied Motors Service Station & Ors. (RFA No. 822/2007 A/w Misc. v. Suresh Kumar (Dead), through Legal Representative & Anr. (Second Appeal No. 195 of 2008, decided on 26.05.2020), passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh; and j) Sri. Kempahanumaiah v. M/s Allied Motors Service Station & Ors. (RFA No. 822/2007 A/w Misc. Civil No. 9123/2010 decided on 27.02.2012), by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka; 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the original applicant- Baldev Singh Bhati vide sale deed dated 22.02.2018 had sold the premises in question to the respondent no.1; where after, the respondent no.1 became the lawful owner of the premises in question, in all respects. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the substitution of the respondent no.1 in place of Baldev Singh Bhati was necessary for final adjudication of the eviction application in an effective and fair manner, and therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal had rightly allowed the application vide the order dated 20.07.2018. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent no.1 needed the rented premises in question for his bona fide necessity, and such claim of the respondent no.1 was rightly considered by the learned Rent Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide the impugned orders. 4.3. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent no.1 had produced cogent and sufficient evidence before the learned Courts below, and also filed various documents in support of his eviction application; and only after considering those documents and evidence, the impugned orders were passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the eviction application filed by Baldev Singh (original applicant) (subsequently, substituted by respondent no.1 as original applicant), was allowed, while ordering eviction of the tenants from the premises in question; the appeal filed by the petitioner against the same before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2022. 7. This Court further observes that the respondent no.1 has been substituted in place of Baldev Singh Bhati (original eviction applicant) because the premises in question were sold by Baldev Singh Bhati to the respondent no.1 vide sale deed dated 22.02.2018; after such sale, the respondent no.1 became the lawful owner of the premises in question. 7. This Court further observes that the respondent no.1 has been substituted in place of Baldev Singh Bhati (original eviction applicant) because the premises in question were sold by Baldev Singh Bhati to the respondent no.1 vide sale deed dated 22.02.2018; after such sale, the respondent no.1 became the lawful owner of the premises in question. Thus, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly allowed the application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 along with Order 22, Rule 10 CPC so as to enable proper adjudication of the eviction application. 8. This Court also observes that the respondent no. 1 needed the premises in question for his bona fide necessity. Therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly passed the eviction order and the same was uphold by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2022, which is justified in law. Thus, the concurrent findings of the both Tribunal's below in favour of the respondent no.1 call for no interference by this Court. 9. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petitions. 11. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.