[2025:RJ-JP:26685] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10609/2025 Suman Somani Adopted Son Of Shri Anandi Lal Somani, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Flat No. 603, Lee Ground - 7, Jda Scheme, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hanuman Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Nathulal, R/o Jangid Bhawan, House No. 30, M.i. Road Jaipur 2. Sarla Somani W/o Late Shri Om Prakash Somani, Resident Of Subhash Nagar, Near T.b. Sanitarium, Jaipur 3. Sanjay Somani S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Somani, Resident Of Subhash Nagar, Near T.b. Sanitarium, Jaipur 4. Sameer Somani S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Somani, Resident Of Subhash Nagar, Near T.b. Sanitarium, Jaipur 5. Jai Kumar Somani S/o Late Shri Sagarmal Somani, R/o A- 25, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajesh Kala, Mr.Bhavya Kala & Mr.Harshit Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. By passing the order impugned, the Rent Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for his transposition as appellant in the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 against the eviction order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:26685] (2 of 3) [CW-10609/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, when the application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was submitted by the landlord against the respondent Nos.2 to 5, the petitioner was not impleaded in the array of cause-title and the order of eviction was passed against them on 03.09.2015, which was assailed by them before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, by way of filing an appeal. Counsel submits that during pendency of appeal, this fact came into the notice of the Rent Appellate Tribunal that M/s Vasundhra was the tenant in the premises and the petitioner along-with his father Om Prakash Somani was partner in the aforesaid registered partnership firm. Counsel submits that keeping in view of this fact, the matter was remanded to the Rent Tribunal with the direction to implead the petitioner in the array of cause-title as tenant. Counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner was impleaded as tenant in the array of cause-title before the Rent Tribunal. 4. Counsel submits that again the order of eviction has been passed against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2024. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, an appeal has been preferred by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the Rent Appellate Tribunal wherein the petitioner has been impleaded as the respondent, rather the petitioner should have been impleaded as the appellant hence, an application for transposition was submitted and the same has been rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:26685] (3 of 3) [CW-10609/2025] 6. Perusal of the record as well as the order impugned dated 23.04.2025 indicates that the application submitted by the petitioner for his transposition has been rejected on the count that he was at liberty to submit an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, if at all he was aggrieved by the order passed by he Rent Tribunal. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Rent Appellate Tribunal has not committed an error in passing the order impugned because the petitioner was not a party in filing of a separate appeal against the impuged eviction order dated 29.04.2024. 8. This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file separate appeal against the order of eviction before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. In case, such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the Rent Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the arguments along-with the connected appeal submitted by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, ignoring the period of limitation. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /6