[2025:RJ-JP:2327] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 530/2025 Madan Singh Rawat S/o Shravan Singh Rawat, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 97/24, Babu Mohalla, Kesarganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Late Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma, W/o Late Ramesh Dutt Sharma 1/1. Smt. Sudha Acharya W/o Late Mr. Vipin Acharya D/o Late Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma C/o Saurabh Acharya, 72/78, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Raj. 1/2. Smt. Neeta Gautam W/o Pushpakant Gautam, R/o 597, Basant Vihar Colony, Behind Ankalak School, Near Jain Temple, Kota, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mandar Bhatodkar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 16/01/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the eviction judgment and decree dated 11.01.2017 and order of the appellate Court dated 09.07.2024. 2. The brief facts are that respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’) for eviction of the petitioner from demised premises. The eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide necessity and default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent on both the grounds. During [2025:RJ-JP:2327] (2 of 2) [CW-530/2025] pendency of the appeal the landlord died and the eviction order was upheld on the ground of default of payment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conditions provided under proviso to Section 9 of the Act were not complied with. Neither details of the bank account in the same municipal area was provided through registered post nor notice demanding arrears of rent was served on the petitioner. 4. From perusal of the pleadings, it is forthcoming that no such plea was taken by the petitioner either before the Rent Tribunal or was pressed at time of arguing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a question of law and should be entertained at this stage. The contention lacks merit. The issue whether bank details were provided and notice was issued is question of fact. In view of settled scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no case is made out to entertain writ. There is no legal or factual error much less perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. 6. All pending application(s) stand dismissed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /05 Reportable:- Yes