[2025:RJ-JP:28172] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 301/2024 Anees Miyan S/o Chuttu Khan, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Gaddha Pahadiya, Tonk Present Tenant Near Gali Karigaraan, Subhash Bazaar, Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus Matin Aadil S/o Vahid Ali, R/o Near Khari Kui, Gaddha Pahadiya, Ward No 11, Tonk Tehsil And District Tonk. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav, Adv. for Mr. Bharat Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 28/07/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by Rent Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a petition against the petitioner before Rent Tribunal, Tonk in which petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that prior to this petition, respondent had filed a petition regarding eviction, which was registered as 11/2012 “Matin Aadil Vs. Anees Miyan”. The said petition was dismissed on 09.05.2022. The appeal is pending against the said order and the respondent filed the present petition which is barred by res- judicata but the Rent Tribunal wrongly dismissed the application [2025:RJ-JP:28172] (2 of 2) [CR-301/2024] filed by the petitioner. So, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that previous petition and present petition have no similar cause of action but parties are same. The present petition is filed for personal and bonafide necessity, which was not the situation in the early petition. So, res-judicata is not applicable. He also stated that while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, trial court also stated that point of res-judicata would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, present petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. It is an admitted position that by way of application, the petitioner has raised the point of res-judicata. In my considered opinion, Rent Tribunal while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner clearly mentioned that point of res-judicata would be decided after evidence of the parties because it is a mixed question of law and fact. So, in my considered opinion, Rent Tribunal had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with liberty to raise all the objections in written statement. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /03