ASHOK KUMAR Vs. AKASH TRAINGURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dtd. 28/4/2025 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the other application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, "the Act of 2001") was submitted by the respondent against the petitioners for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and default in payment of arrears of rent and the said application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dtd. 25/5/2022, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Appellate Rent Tribunal.

(3.) Counsel submits that the original landlord of the rented premises was one Manohar Lal who was having three children, i.e., Ram Babu, Shyam Babu and Radha Rani. Counsel submits that his third child, i.e. Radha Rani sold her 1/3rd share in the rented premises to the petitioners by way of a registered sale deed on 8/4/2024 and on the basis of the same, the petitioners have become the co-owners of the rented premises. Counsel submits that subsequent developments took place during pendency of the appeal, hence, under these circumstances, these two applications were submitted, one for taking the registered sale deed on record and other for seeking amendment in the written statement, but without considering the material aspect of the matter that the petitioners have become co-owner of the rented premises, both the applications have been rejected. Counsel submits that subsequent developments which have taken place during pendency of the appeal, are required to be taken on record, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.