HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8074/2025 Parvat Singh Urf Vikram Singh S/o Shri Prahlad Singh, Aged About 55 Years, At Present R/o Plot No. 40, Ramnagar Vaishnav Vihar 80 Feet Road Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Smt Hemlata Sharma W/o Late Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Old Vidhyadhar Nagar D-407, Sector 8 Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/05/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the Tribunal’), instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. By passing the order dated 18.03.2025, the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking compliance of the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent submitted an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the petitioner for eviction before the Tribunal in the year 2017, but in support of the said (2 of 3) [CW-8074/2025] application, neither an affidavit nor documents were submitted in terms of the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Act of 2001, but even then, the Tribunal has proceeded further with the matter and passed the order of eviction against the petitioner vide order dated 11.01.2023. Counsel submits that it is mandatory for the applicant to comply with the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that in the instant case, no such compliance was made by the respondent, hence, under these circumstances, his application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 itself was not maintainable, but this fact was overlooked by the Tribunal while passing order impugned, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner for his eviction and the said application was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2023 and the order of eviction of the petitioner has been passed. After passing of the aforesaid order, an application has been submitted by the petitioner in terms of Section 15 of the Act of 2001 taking technical objection that affidavit or documents were not annexed by the respondent with the original application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and the Tribunal has rejected the said application on the ground that (3 of 3) [CW-8074/2025] no such objection was taken by the petitioner during pendency of the aforesaid application and this objection has been taken after disposal of the said application, hence, under such circumstances, said application is/was not maintainable. 6. This Court finds no error in the order passed by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has become functus officio at the moment, the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 is decided, inasmuch as after the decision of any matter, no application can be submitted for correction of any order. This Court finds no merit and substance in the instant writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/18