[2025:RJ-JP:14309] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11821/2024 Smt. Madina Wife Of Saleem Khan, Resident Of Madina Colony, Purana Sahar, Dholpur Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner/Non-Applicant Versus Kailashi Lal Sharma Son Of Late Shri Daulatram Sharma, Resident Of Bhamtipura, Dholpur Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.). ----Respondent/Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Jain with Mr. Udit Sapra For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 28/03/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dholpur (for brevity, “learned Rent Tribunal”) in application no.1/2021 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant (for brevity, “non- applicant”) under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “Act of 2001”), has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/landlord/applicant (for brevity, “applicant”) filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the non- applicant seeking her eviction from the residential premises. The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Dholpur vide its final order dated 06.09.2022 which was assailed by him [2025:RJ-JP:14309] (2 of 3) [CW-11821/2024] before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Dholpur (for brevity, “learned Appellate Rent Tribunal”) by way of regular civil appeal no: CIS No.4/2022 which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 22.04.2024. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the final order dated 06.09.2022, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal directed the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the affidavits and documents filed by the appellant/applicant. After remand, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 21 before the learned Rent Tribunal praying for time to file reply to the original application and to subject the applicant and his witness to cross-examination. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned dated 30.05.2024. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that since, a direction has been issued by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal for taking into consideration the affidavits of the applicant and the documents submitted by him, he has right to subject the witness to cross-examination. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned be quashed and set aside and the application filed by her be allowed. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the application filed by the non-applicant, learned Rent Tribunal has observed that there is no direction by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal either to permit her to file reply or to lead any evidence. After going through the direction issued by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated 22.04.2024, this Court is in respectful agreement with the [2025:RJ-JP:14309] (3 of 3) [CW-11821/2024] findings so recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal. The only direction given by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, while remanding the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal, is to afford both the parties an opportunity of hearing and to take into consideration the affidavits and the documents filed by the applicant before it. There was a cogent reason behind it inasmuch as despite service, the non-applicant did not choose either to file reply to the original application or to lead any evidence resulting into ex parte proceedings against her. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /43