[2025:RJ-JP:42341] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13660/2025 Ravishankar Gupta S/o Shri Bhuramal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Plot No. 43, Shastri Nagar, Shopping Center, Opposite Peetal Factory, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mohd. Shakil, Age about 55 years 2. Mohd. Rafiq, Age About 53 Years 3. Mohd. Shafiq (Respondent No.1 to 3 S/o Sh. Umardeen, R/o House No. 3695, Kalyan Ji Ka Rasta, Indra Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripunjay Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner– tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan–I, in Appeal No. 01/2024 titled as 'Ravishankar Gupta Vs. Mohd. Shakil & Ors.', whereby the petitioner’s application dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure– 6) filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for framing additional issues, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he initially filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, dated 12.10.2022 before the learned Rent [2025:RJ-JP:42341] (2 of 3) [CW-13660/2025] Tribunal, however, the said application remained undecided. Therefore, the petitioner filed the another application before the Rent Appellate Tribunal with a prayer that the additional issues be framed in the interest of justice. 3. The respondents filed reply to the application opposing the contentions raised therein on the ground that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he is a tenant in the disputed property, and no counter-claim has been filed by the petitioner regarding the alleged payment of Rs. 30,000/- as security deposit to the erstwhile owner, Shri Umardeen. Hence, there is no merit in the application so filed. 4. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, after considering the averments made in the application as well as the reply filed thereto, dismissed the application. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 6. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the present eviction petition was filed in the year 2011, on the grounds of bona fide requirement, sub-letting, and acquisition of alternative accommodation, wherein the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he is a tenant in the property. Further, from the reply filed in the eviction petition, it is also evident that no counter-claim has been made regarding the security deposit of Rs.30,000/- that was paid to the erstwhile owner, Shri Umardeen. Therefore, the issues No. 3(A) and 3(B), sought to be framed either in the application dated 04.04.2024 or in the application dated 12.10.2022 filed before the learned Rent Tribunal, cannot be [2025:RJ-JP:42341] (3 of 3) [CW-13660/2025] said to be necessary for the proper adjudication of the present eviction petition. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/3