HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6342/2024 Dr. Subhash Bhardwaj S/o Lt. Sh. Harishankar Bhardwaj, R/o A- 74, Subhash Colony Kherli Phatak, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Savitri Sharma W/o Radheyshyam Sharma, R/o C- 50, Santosh Nagar, Thekda, Kota (Raj.) 2. Nanhe Khan S/o Ramjani, R/o House Of Dr. Subhash Bhardwaj, House No. 50, Santosh Nagar First, Thekda, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bharadwaj For Respondent(s) : Dr. Abhinav Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota by which the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal has been quashed and set-aside and the matter has been remitted for its fresh disposal. 2. Both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 are claiming themselves to be the owner of the property on the basis of agreement executed in their favour. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property in question from the respondent No.1 by way of an agreement to sell which is disputed by counsel for the respondent No.1 and he submits that a forged document has been created by the (2 of 3) [CW-6342/2024] petitioner whereas and the property was never sold by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner and an FIR has been registered against the petitioner wherein after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide a disputed title between the parties. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Others Versus Naba Kumar Das & Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also claims the title over the property in question on the basis of an agreement executed in favour of one Prahlad Kumar. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if any decree is passed, and is obtained on the basis of fraudulent documents, the same is null and void. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Meghmala & Others Versus G. Narasimha Reddy & Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Versus Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, Ram Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2023) 16 SCC 691 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Parmeshwar Lal versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2022) 3 RLW (Raj.) 2184. 5. Heard and considered the submissions of the rival sides, both petitioner and respondent No.1 are claiming themselves the (3 of 3) [CW-6342/2024] landlord of the premises in question on the basis of agreement executed in their favour. 6. This Court cannot adjudicate the disputed question of fact under its supervisory jurisdiction contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter is required to be adjudicated by the Rent Tribunal concerned and the matter has been remanded by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. This Court is not going to examine the right & title of the parties in the instant writ petition and the same would be decided by the Rent Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and documents submitted before it. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/132