HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12790/2024 Dinesh Kumar Mittal S/o Late Sh. Manoharlal Mittal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o House No. 5Ka 235-236, Shivaji Park, Alwar (Raj.) Shopkeeper Tenent, Plot No. 118, Near Tempo Stand, Shivaji Park, Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Meena Singhal W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Sing- hal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 118, Near Tempo Stand, Shivaji Park, Alwar (Raj.) 2. Garima Singhal D/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 118, Near Tempo Stand, Shivaji Park, Alwar (Raj.) 3. Lili Singhal D/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Plot No. 118, Near Tempo Stand, Shivaji Park, Alwar (Raj.) 4. Deepti Singhal W/o Shri Mohit Mittal D/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Singhal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 118, Near Tempo Stand, Shivaji Park, Alwar (Raj.) Presently Residing At 39 A, Shashtri Nagar, Medical Colony, Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar by which the application filed by the peti- tioner under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. (2 of 3) [CW-12790/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an evic- tion application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) has been submitted by the respondent before the Rent Tribunal on the ground of de- fault of payment and bonafide necessity. Counsel submits that the respondents have an alternative accommodation and they are not in bonafide need of the rental premises, so for proving the aforesaid fact, map was prepared and submitted on the record by way of filing an application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC, but the Tribunal has rejected the said application only on the count that the same has been filed in order to delay the disposal of the eviction application. Counsel submits that the map of the site is an essential document, which is required to be taken on record. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on earlier occasion also, an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for taking other evidence on record was submitted by the petitioner on 05.01.2024 and the same was rejected on 01.03.2024. Counsel submits that the petitioner could have filed this map along with said application, but the sole objection of the same is to delay the disposal of applica- tion, which is lying pending for adjudication since 2021. Coun- sel submits that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned and co- gent order, which requires no interference of this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 3) [CW-12790/2024] 5. Perusal of the order indicates that an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was submitted by the petitioner for taking a map of the site on the record. The application of the peti- tioner has been rejected by holding that no such prayer was made in the similar application filed by the petitioner earlier, which was already rejected on 01.03.2024. 6. For proving the fact that whether the respondent has an alternative accommodation or not, the petitioner can adduce his adequate evidence simply on the basis of certain map, but the aforesaid aspect cannot be proved, hence, the Court has not committed error in rejecting the application. The order im- pugned has been passed by the Tribunal by recording a co- gent reasoning, which requires no interference of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 8. The cost imposed by the Tribunal stands waived. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/88