[2025:RJ-JP:15595] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 295/2025 Hemchand Jain S/o Rajmal, Shop- Oswal Sports, Manik Bhawan Complex, Kotdi-Gumanpura Road, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Ravindra Singh Sauda S/o Sh. Thakur Ranjeet Singh, aged about 77 Years, R/o Manik Bhawan, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.) 2. Uma Barhat W/o Dr. Ravindra Singh Sauda, aged about 72 Years, R/o Manik Bhawan, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Singh for Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/04/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota in case No. 111/2023, an application filed by the petitioner for deleting the name of respondent No. 1 has been rejected and the case is posted for recording the evidence of the respondent-landlord. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) was submitted by the respondents against the petitioner for eviction from the premises. Counsel submits that there was no clarity in the cause title with regard to the actual owner of the premises, hence under these circumstances, an application has been submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:15595] (2 of 2) [CW-295/2025] petitioner for deletion of the name of respondent No. 1 from the array of respondents in the said application. Counsel submits that inspite of framing an issue in this regard, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, hence there is no clarity on record with regard to actual owner of the premises. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submission made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the case is posted for recording the evidence of the respondent-landlord and the fact with regard to actual ownership of the property in question would be decided by the Tribunal at the appropriate stage at the time of final arguments. The petitioner would be at liberty to cross- examine the respondents with regard to her right, title and interest over the property in question. This liberty has already been granted to the petitioner while passing the reasoned and speaking impugned order by the Court below. 5. This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/7