[2025:RJ-JP:17259] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2024 Shravan Kumar Chandrawal S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Chandrawal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village- Gudachandraji, Tehsil- Nadoti, District- Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Sh. Babulal Sharma S/o Sh. Girraj Sharma, Aged Adult, R/o Plot No. 4, Defence Colony, Goner Road, Tehsil- Sanganer, District- Jaipur, Permanent Resident Of Kayasth Mohalla, Kaswa Nagar, Tehsil- Nagar, District- Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dikshant Jain Mr. Siddharth Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Kumawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Rent Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Tribunal’) by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question was let out to the respondent in the year 2016 at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,500/- but respondent made default in payment of the same and the premises was required by the petitioner for his bona fide needs, hence an application under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001 was submitted before the Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:17259] (2 of 3) [CW-624/2024] Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the rent eviction application, an application under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001 was submitted seeking direction against the respondent to pay the due rent and arrears to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the said application filed by the petitioner has been rejected on a technical count that the aforesaid amount of rent was deposited by the respondents and that there was no due amount of rent or its arrears to be paid. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence was produced by the respondent that the rent was ever paid by him to the petitioner-landlord, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that while submitting reply/written statement to the eviction application, a specific plea has been taken by the respondent that the premises in question has been purchased by him and the payment has been made to the landlord, hence under these circumstances, there is no question of any due amount of rent or its arrears. Counsel submits that the disputed question of law and facts are required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal by taking the evidence of both sides and on the basis of aforesaid fact, the issue was decided and the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order, which requires no interference of this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:17259] (3 of 3) [CW-624/2024] 5. The disputed questions of facts have been raised by the rival sides with regard to the payment or non-payment of the amount of due rent and its arrears. As per the case of the petitioner, the amount of rent has not been paid to him since April 2018 and arrears have also not been paid. Hence, an application under Section 19-A of the Act of 2001 has been submitted. On the contrary, the aforesaid fact has been disputed by the respondent in the averments that the property in question was purchased and a modest amount of consideration is paid by him to the landlord. 6. Considering the above disputed facts of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly passed an order to determine this issue after taking the evidence of both sides, even this Court is of the view that the issue is required to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal is directed to decide this issue as preliminary issue on the basis of the evidence led by both sides expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. The present writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/45