Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1291 (RAJ)

Shivlal v. Ramesh

2023-07-04

INDERJEET SINGH

body2023
ORDER : (Inderjeet Singh, J.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioners-non-applicants under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant filed eviction application against the petitioners-non-applicants before the learned Rent Tribunal. The learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 17.02.2020 allowed the eviction application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the petitioners-non-applicants filed a regular appeal before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners-applicants filed an application under Section 21 (3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 19.04.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-non-applicants challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioners-non-applicants submits that the learned Appellate Court has committed serious illegality in not allowing the application under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 submitted by the petitioners-non-applicants and documents which the petitioners-non-applicants want to summon relates to ownership of the property in dispute. 4. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This writ petition filed by the petitioners-non-applicants deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the documents which the petitioners-non-applicants want to summon relates to ownership of the property in dispute, in my considered view, the petitioners-non-applicants cannot raise a dispute with regard to ownership of the property, secondly, the petitioners-non- applicants have failed to raise this issue before the learned Rent Tribunal at initial stage, lastly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.