[2025:RJ-JP:25302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6500/2025 Muminder Singh S/o Late Shri Sardar Raghuveer Singh, R/o House No. 166/17, Iron Merchant, Kasturi Sari Wali Gali Ke Pass, Purani Mandi, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar @ Sirumal S/o Late Shri Fagunmal, R/o 166/17, Kasturi Sari Wali Gali Ke Pass, Purani Mandi, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mamoon Khalid & Mr. Shafiqur Rahman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Tanmay Sharma, Mr. Kartik Sharma & Mr. Bhawani Shankar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (for short ‘Tribunal’), the instant writ petition has been filed before this Court. 2. By passing the order impugned, the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for not taking the rejoinder, submitted by the respondent, on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘Act of 2001’) against the petitioner on various grounds against which a detailed reply was submitted by him. [2025:RJ-JP:25302] (2 of 4) [CW-6500/2025] 4. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has never denied the title or renounced the title of the respondent. He has simply narrated the fact that the respondent is not a bonafide landlord but this pleading of the petitioner has been misconstrued by the respondent, as if the petitioner has denied/renounced the title of the respondent and he has filed a rejoinder wherein a new case has been made out by him about denial of title of landlord by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, the rejoinder submitted by the respondent should not have been taken on record but when these facts were narrated before the Tribunal by way of filing an application, the Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the said application. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal & Anr.” reported in [2009] 2 RLW (Raj.) 1547. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has denied the title of the respondent by raising a question on the source of property received by the respondent. 8. Learned counsel submits that apart from the above, he has questioned the renouncement of title of the respondent, hence under these circumstances, no other option was available with the respondent, except to file a rejoinder by treating such conduct of [2025:RJ-JP:25302] (3 of 4) [CW-6500/2025] the petitioner as denial of title on his part, that is why the rejoinder has been submitted. 9. Counsel further submits that liberty has been granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal to submit surrejoinder to the rejoinder submitted by the respondent and the petitioner would be at liberty to produce all his evidence in support of his contentions at the appropriate stage of the trial. Hence, under these circumstances interference of this Court is not warranted, as the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Tribunal is just and proper. 10. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Dinesh Arora Vs. Vibhore Kapoor & Anr.” reported in [2018] 3 DNJ 1057. 11. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 12. Perusal of the record as well as the order dated 21.01.2025, indicate that a reply to the application, submitted by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, was submitted by the petitioner, against which a rejoinder has been submitted by the respondent incorporating certain facts. The apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is that the word “bonafide landlord” has been misconstrued by the respondent by taking an additional ground of denial of title/renouncement of title. The apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is that a new case has been build up by the respondent by way of filing the rejoinder with above contents. 13. Whether the petitioner has denied/renounced the title of the respondent or not? Whether the pleadings submitted by the respondent in his reply and the pleadings taken by the respondent [2025:RJ-JP:25302] (4 of 4) [CW-6500/2025] in his rejoinder, amount to denial of title/renouncement of title or not, is a subject matter which is required to be decided by the Tribunal, at the appropriate stage, after appreciating the evidence led by both the sides. An opportunity has been granted to the petitioner in the impugned order itself by the Tribunal to submit surrejoinder to the rejoinder submitted by the respondent. He is at liberty to clarify the facts and his contentions by way of filing the same in the form of application before the Tribunal. In case such application is submitted, the same would be decided by the Tribunal, in the light of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal. 14. This Court finds no error in the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal which warrants any interference. 15. The present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. 16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J AMIT/43