[2025:RJ-JP:18192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6468/2025 1. Mansuri S/o Alladeen Haji, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No. 2901, Bhindo Ka Rasta, Police Choki Silawatiya, Pawto Ka Chok, Chandpol Bajar, Chokdi, Topamkhan Desh, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives 1/1. Jakir Mansuri S/o Munna Mansuri, R/o House No. 2901, Bhindo Ka Rasta, Police Choki Silawatiya, Pawto Ka Chok, Chandpol Bajar, Chokdi, Topamkhan Desh, Jaipur, Rajasthan 1/2. Aakib Mansuri S/o Munna Mansuri, R/o House No. 2901, Bhindo Ka Rasta, Police Choki Silawatiya, Pawto Ka Chok, Chandpol Bajar, Chokdi, Topamkhan Desh, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Raj Bihari Tikkiwal Adopted Son Of Late Brij Bihari Tikkiwal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 57, Tikkiwal Bhawan, M.i. Road, Panch Batti, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Power Of Attorney Holder Smt. Rajni Tikkiwal W/o Shri Raj Bihari Tikkiwal Age 34 Years, House No. 57, Tikkiwal Bhawan, M.i. Road, Panch Batti, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I by which the application filed by the [2025:RJ-JP:18192] (2 of 3) [CW-6468/2025] petitioner for granting an opportunity to lead his evidence, has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, the Act of 2001) was submitted by the respondent against the father of the petitioners-Munna Mansuri, whose evidence was closed on 18.01.2018 and the case was posted for final arguments. Counsel submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid application, the father of the petitioners expired, hence the petitioners have been substituted on record as legal representatives on 28.05.2022. Counsel submit that father of the petitioners could not produce adequate evidence during his life time as he was suffering from severe ailment, hence under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioners for granting them opportunity to lead evidence but the said application has been rejected by the Tribunal by holding that the application has been filed at the stage of final arguments in order to delay the disposal of the eviction petition. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have been substituted in place of the original tenant after their father’s death and they wanted to lead certain evidence by way of filing an application and the said application has been rejected by the Tribunal by holding that it has been submitted, at the stage of final arguments and the matter is pending before the Tribunal since last ten years, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the application but looking to the interest of the petitioners, one last and final opportunity is granted [2025:RJ-JP:18192] (3 of 3) [CW-6468/2025] to the petitioners subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent before the next date posted before the Tribunal. In case, the petitioners pay the aforesaid cost amount to the respondent, one last and final opportunity be granted to them to lead their evidence and in case, they fail to pay the cost amount and fail to adduce the evidence on the next date posted before the Trial Court, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioners and the Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. 4. Before parting with this order, the Tribunal is directed to decide the eviction petition expeditiously as early as possible, preferable within a period of three months as the case is lying pending for final arguments since 2018 i.e. more than seven years. 5. This ex parte order has been passed by this Court to avoid any further delay in disposal of eviction petition submitted by the landlord. In case, the landlord feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move application for recalling of this order. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/38