[2025:RJ-JP:46370] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15883/2025 1. Shri Laxminarayan, Major Son Of Shri Ganpat Lal Arora, In His Capacity As Owner/partner/manager And/or Karta, Vayaparik Karobar Ajnam "Ganpati Readymade Vastra Bhandar" Thikana Lal Pyau And Shri Shantinath Jain Shwetambar Mandir (Which Is Also Called Hathiyo Ka Mandir) Ke Beech, Lal Pyau Ke Pass, Shradanand Bazar (Pali Bazar) Beawar, Distt. Ajmer (Raj). Other Address Shri Laxminarayan, Major Son Of Shri Ganpatlal Arora, Thikana Diggi School Ke Pass, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar Distt. Ajmer (Raj). (Since Deceased) Through: 1/1. Smt. Manju Arora D/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora W/o Shri Gajendra Arora, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Khatriyon Ka Bas, Gol Nimbada, Pali. 1/2. Shri Anil Arora, S/o Shri Dev Kishan Arora, aged 54 years, 1/3. Astha Arora D/o Shri Anil Arora, aged 24 years, No. a/2 And 1/3 R/o. 14/396, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. 1/4. Smt. Pinki D/o Shri Laxminarayan W/o Shri Pankaj Arora, aged 44 years, R/o 32, Radha Swami Nagar, Opposite Vijay Path, New Sanganer Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Applicants Versus Dharmichand S/o Rikhab Chand Bohra (Oswal Jain), R/o Thikna Dhobi Gali, Sahapura Mohalla Beawar, District Ajmer At Present District Beawar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Mr. Aditya Sharma (Caveator) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order [2025:RJ-JP:46370] (2 of 7) [CW-15883/2025] dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Beawar, in Civil Suit No. 85/2011, titled as 'Shri Dharmichand & Ors. vs. Shri Laxminarayan & Ors.', whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, submits that the petitioners are the legal representatives of Shri Laxminarayan Arora, who expired on 16.05.2018. He further submits that, initially, on 31.05.2018, the respondent/plaintiff-Shri Dharmichand, himself filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein the names of Smt. Manju Arora, Smt. Asha Arora, and Smt. Pinki, being daughters of Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora, were shown as the legal representatives of Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora. However, later, vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 13.05.2025, the names of Smt. Manju Arora, Smt. Asha Arora, and Smt. Pinki were ordered to be deleted by the learned Trial Court. 3. He further submits that the aforesaid deletion compelled the petitioners/applicants to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on 30.06.2025, on the ground that though the petitioners are married daughters, they were carrying on business with their late father and being stakeholders, they are getting their respective share of profit from the earning of the said shop. 4. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order [2025:RJ-JP:46370] (3 of 7) [CW-15883/2025] passed by the learned Trial Court may kindly be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appears as Caveator for the respondent/plaintiff, and submits that the petitioners/applicants, namely Smt. Manju Arora and Smt. Pinki, are the married daughters of Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora, wherein Smt. Manju Arora resides at Pali and Smt. Pinki is a resident of Mansarovar, Jaipur. He further submits that the petitioners/applicants, Shri Anil Arora and Astha Arora, being husband & daughter of Late Smt. Asha Arora, respectively, are residents of Jodhpur. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioners/applicants that they were carrying on business along with their late father as members of his family till his death cannot be accepted as the shop in dispute is situated at Beawar. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 has been passed by the learned Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, does not call for any interference in the writ petition. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the original tenant, Shri Laxminarayan Arora, in the year 2011. Shri Laxminarayan Arora expired on 16.05.2018, and though the respondent/plaintiff initially filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for impleadment of all the legal representatives of Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora, later, [2025:RJ-JP:46370] (4 of 7) [CW-15883/2025] vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 13.05.2025, names of the daughters of Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora, i.e. Smt. Manju Arora, Asha Arora and Smt. Pinki, were ordered to be deleted from the list of his legal representatives. 8. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also evident that the suit property is a commercial premises where the tenant-Shri Laxminarayan Arora was carrying on business under the name and style of “Ganpati Readymade Vastra Bhandar.” The suit property is situated at Shradhanand Bazar/Pali Bazar, Beawar. 9. It would be appropriate to reproduce the definition of "tenant" under Section 2(i)(b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, as under: Section 2 "(i) "tenant" means— (i) the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by an order or decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act; and (ii) in the event of the death of the person referred to in sub-clause (i),— (a) in case of premises let out for residential purposes, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily residing with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death; (b) in case of premises let out for commercial or business purpose, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death; and” 10. Further, in a judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court at Principle Seat, Jodhpur, in the matter of LRs of Ramdev and Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi and Ors.1, has held as under:- "14. This Court in the case of Achal Raj Vs. LRs of Smt. Ashiya [S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 145/1996, decided on 09.12.2015], while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand (supra) has held as under:- 1 2016 2 RLW(Raj) 1670 [2025:RJ-JP:46370] (5 of 7) [CW-15883/2025] 16. This Court in Chimanlal & Anr. vs. Narendra Kumar - 1995 DNJ (Raj.) 563 held as under: 16. The term "Ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death" makes it clear that protection of Sec.3(vii)(b) of Act No. 17 of 1950 is extended to only those heirs and legal representatives of deceased-tenant who continued to do business along with the tenant upto his death. The person who carried on business with the tenant till his death only be treated as tenant under the Amended Act No. 14 of 1950. If the heirs and legal representatives of deceased-tenant Mangi Lal were not carrying on business along with the deceased-tenant at the time of his death, they would not be treated as tenants under the aforesaid Act. All heirs and legal representatives of deceased-tenant will not become ipso facto statutory tenant under the Act. In fact, only those heirs and legal representatives who are members of the family plus who carried on business with the original tenant upto his death are entitled to get benefit of Sec.3(vii)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, carrying on business after death of original tenant in the premises will not make such heir and legal representatives as tenant under the Act. 17. Again in Navneet Rai vs. Otmal (1996) 1 All India RCJ, this Court held that:- 9. Admittedly, the ejectment was sought for on the ground of personal need of business and deceased Navneet Rai was carrying on business in the suit premises. Thus, to be a tenant within the meaning of Section 3(vii)(b) of the Act, it is necessary for a person to show that he was ordinarily carrying on with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death. Subsequently carrying on the business in the same premises will not make the legal representative a tenant. Tenant will be person, who is a member of the family plus who carried on business with the original tenant. The person, who was not carrying on business along with the tenant during his life time will not be a tenant of the premises after his death, in respect of the premises leased out for commercial and business purposes. It must be established that the surviving spouse or the son or daughter and the heir, as the case may be, ordinarily had been carrying on the business during the life time of the tenant as member of the family in the demised premises and continued to do business till the date of the death of the tenant. In other words, to avail the statutory right under Section 3(vii)(b) of the Act, the person should carry on business along with the tenant until his death then alone he can be treated as a tenant of the suit premises. Reliance is placed on Tara Chand vs. Ram Prasad. 10.........It is clear that all the legal representatives were employed and were not carrying on business along with the deceased Navneet Rai till his death. The person who carries on business with the tenant till his death shall only be treated as a tenant under the Act. But the legal representative were not carrying on business along with deceased Navneet Rai at the time of his death. They are not the tenants within the meaning of the Act and thus, have no right to challenge the decree for ejectment passed against the tenant deceased Navneet Rai." xxxxx [2025:RJ-JP:46370] (6 of 7) [CW-15883/2025] 11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid definition and the judgment, it is evident that, for a person to be impleaded as a tenant in respect of a commercial property, it is necessary that the surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother, or father, had been ordinarily carrying on business with the deceased tenant in such premises as a member of his family up to the time of his death. 12. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit property is situated at Beawar. All the petitioners/applicants are residents of Jodhpur, Pali, and Jaipur, it cannot be believed that they were carrying on business along with their late father, particularly when they are married daughters residing at distant places. 13. Furthermore, the right of the tenant, Late Shri Laxminarayan Arora, is already substantially represented by other legal representatives. The applicants are either married daughters or legal representatives of the deceased married daughter, and has failed to fulfill the requisites of law to be impleaded as tenant in the commercial property. Thus, they cannot be said to be necessary or proper parties to the proceedings. 14. Apart from all the above, it is also pertinent to mention here that the two other interlocutory orders dated 05.02.2025 and 13.05.2025, by which the petitioners were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, have not been assailed by either of the parties, therefore findings recorded therein have attained finality. 15. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court has rightly declined to implead the present petitioners/applicants as party respondents in the main suit. [2025:RJ-JP:46370] (7 of 7) [CW-15883/2025] 16. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 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. 17. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 18. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/2