[2025:RJ-JP:35935] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12889/2025 Narayan Das S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Garg, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Daulatram Pole, Near Old Sabji Mandi, Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. K.M. Electronics, a Business Firm through its Proprietor/partner/manager and/or Karta Kundan Sindhi S/o Shri Kishanchand Sindhi R/o Infront of Mangal Market, Pali Bazar (Shradhanand Bazar) Beawar, District Ajmer. 2. Kundan Sindhi S/o Shri Kishan Chand Sindhi, in the capacity of Self and capacity Proprietor/partner/manager And/or Karta of Business Firm Ajnam of M/s K.M. Electronics R/o Infront of Mangal Market, Pali Bazar (Shradhanand Bazar) Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19708/2024 1. K.M. Electronics, a business undertaking, through its Owner/partner/manager/or Karta, Kundan Sindhi S/o Shri Kishan Chand Sindhi, aged about 52 Years, Thikana Opposite to Mangal Market, Pali Bazar (Shraddhanand Bazar), Beawar, District Ajmer. 2. Kundan Sindhi S/o Shri Kishan Chand Sindhi, aged about 52 Years, Self And Owner/partner/manager/or Karta, M/s K.M. Electronics, Thikana Opposite to Mangal Market, Pali Bazar (Shraddhanand Bazar), Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus Narayan Das S/o Late Shri Ram Niwas Garg, aged About 69 Years, Thikana Daulat Ram Pole, Near Old Vegetable Gali, Beawar, District Ajmer. ----Respondent [2025:RJ-JP:35935] (2 of 5) [CW-12889/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/09/2025 1. Since, common question of facts and law are involved in both writ petitions, therefore with the consent of counsel for the parties, both the matters are taken up together for final disposal and are being decided by this common order. 2. By way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12889/2025, a prayer has been made for seeking directions to the Rent Appellate Tribunal to decide the Appeal No. 34/2024 preferred by the respondent-tenant against the order of eviction by the Rent Tribunal. While S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19708/2024 has been preferred by the respondent- tenant for consolidation of two different appeals preferred by the tenant i.e. one before the Rent Appellate Tribunal; and another before the Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar which is pending consideration. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant submits that for the same cause of action i.e. for eviction of the tenant, two parallel proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner-landlord, i.e. one before the Civil Court and another before the Rent Tribunal. 4. Counsel further submits that the application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 12.01.2024 and the civil suit filed by the landlord-petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:35935] (3 of 5) [CW-12889/2025] against the respondent-tenant has been decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2024. Counsel submits that against both the judgments passed by the Tribunal as well as the Civil Court, two different appeals have been preferred by the respondent-tenant i.e. one before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and another before the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Beawer. Counsel submits that since the cause of action which has arisen to the landlord is same and identical and the sole purpose of the petitioner-landlord is to get the tenant evicted from the said premises, hence, in order to avoid the conflict between two different judgments and in the interest of both the parties, both the appeals preferred by the tenant before two different appellate forums be consolidated and a direction be issued to the Court concerned to decide both the appeals by a common judgment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the respondent- tenant and submitted that the landlord had option to avail two different remedies. Counsel submits that prior to enactment of the Act of 2001 there was no remedy available with the landlord to file an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Hence, under these circumstances, a suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act of 1882’) was submitted by the landlord against the respondents-tenant before the civil Court and in the meantime, the Act of 2001 came into force, hence, under the changed circumstances, an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was also submitted by him before the Rent Tribunal. Counsel submits that both the civil suit as well as the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 were allowed by the [2025:RJ-JP:35935] (4 of 5) [CW-12889/2025] concerned Courts against which two different appeals have been preferred by the respondent-tenant before two different Appellate forums. Counsel submits that there is no need to consolidate both the appeals as the grounds taken in both the appeals are altogether different, hence, under these circumstances, the writ petition preferred by the respondent-tenant be dismissed. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the subject premises was let out by the petitioner- landlord to the respondent-tenant and thereafter, a civil suit under Section 106 of the Act of 1882, was submitted by the landlord against the respondent-tenant for his eviction on certain grounds and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 15.05.2024. It appears that subsequently, an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the same landlord against the same respondents-tenant before the Rent Tribunal and the same was also allowed vide order dated 12.01.2024. 8. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as the Rent Tribunal, two different appeals have been preferred by the respondent-tenant before two Appellate forums ie. one before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and another before the Additional District Judge No.1, Beawer. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in order to avoid two conflicting judgments in appeals and looking to the fact that the ultimate fate would be the same of the instant case and the appeals filed by the respondent- tenant in both the matters are required to be decided by one Appellate Forum. [2025:RJ-JP:35935] (5 of 5) [CW-12889/2025] 10. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to transfer both the appeals i.e. Rent Appeal No. 34/2024 pending before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer and another Civil First Appeal No. 26/2024 pending before the Appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge No.1, Beawer to the District Judge, Beawer. The District Judge, Beawer is expected to make all possible endeavours to decide both the appeals by passing a consolidated order in both the appeals expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/8,150