[2025:RJ-JP:26781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6371/2025 Sampat Swami S/o Shri Maliram Swami, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Residing At Road No. 3, Near Chipa Factory And Skyline Hospital, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Shokat Ali S/o Late Shri Mehboob Ali Kha, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Road No. 3, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 2. Shri Iqbal Hussain S/o Late Shri Mehboob Ali Kha, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Road No. 3, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 3. Shree Jahoor Ahmed S/o Late Shri Mehboob Ali Kha, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Road No. 3, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 4. Smt. Batool Begum D/o Late Shri Mehboob Ali Kha, W/o Shri Maqbool Kha, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Road No. 2, Imam Nagar, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 5. Smt Roshan Begum D/o Late Shri Mehboob Ali Kha, W/o Shri Hakeem Ali Kha, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of G-23, Indira Nagar, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 6. Smt. Ruksana Bano D/o Late Shri Mehboob Ali Kha, W/o Shri Hakeem Ali Kha, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Batwalaan, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Balwada with Mr. Aditya Raj Mr. Sunil Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by District Judge, Jhunjhunu, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:26781] (2 of 4) [CW-6371/2025] 2. By passing the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, the District Judge, Jhunjhunu has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking the rent receipts on the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an eviction application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondents against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. Learned counsel submits that the rent eviction application submitted by the respondents was allowed on the above mentioned ground vide order dated 16.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 16.07.2024 before the Rent Appellate Tribunal where an application was also submitted by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC indicating therein that the due rent of Rs.75,300/- was deposited by the petitioner with interest and thereafter regular rent was paid by the petitioner by depositing the same in the bank account of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that photographs of certain shops were also submitted with the aforesaid application indicating therein that the respondents have alternative shops, hence, the shop in question is not required by the respondents but these facts were overlooked by the Appellate Rent Tribunal while rejecting the said application submitted by the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner wanted to bring these receipts on the record by way of filing [2025:RJ-JP:26781] (3 of 4) [CW-6371/2025] application, but the Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the same, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the receipts so produced by the petitioner along- with the aforesaid application pertains to the period commencing from September, 2024 till February, 2025. Learned counsel submits that even the due rent of Rs.75,300/- was deposited by the petitioner only on 16.08.2024, hence, with no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that there was no default on the part of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the photographs submitted by the petitioner have no bearing as no such documentary evidence was produced by him before the Tribunal. Hence, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the default pertains to the period commencing w.e.f. 01.01.2020, no such receipt pertaining to the aforesaid period was produced by the petitioner along-with his application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The receipts pertain to the subsequent period commencing w.e.f. September, 2024 onwards. So far as production of the photographs of other shop is concerned, the petitioner could have submitted these photographs during the pendency of the rent eviction application before the Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:26781] (4 of 4) [CW-6371/2025] 9. Considering these material aspects of the matter, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by passing a cogent and reasoned order, which requires no interference of this Court. 10. The writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. 11. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made by this Court would not influence the Appellate Rent Tribunal while deciding the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the order of eviction. The Appellate Tribunal is expected to decide the appeal on the merits of the matter after hearing arguments of both the sides. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/46