[2025:RJ-JP:40347] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8860/2025 Chandrasekhar Rathore Son Of Lakshmi Narayan, Resident Of Dakshini Bada Lakshmi Chowk (Kadkaa Chowk) Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Kanta Bhardiya Wife Of Roopnarayan Bhardiya, Resident Of House No.7/72-40/75 Shriram Bhavan Kadkaa Chowk Ajmer Through Power Attorney Roopnarayan Bhardiya S/o Ramdan Bhardiya Resident Of House No. 7/72-40/75 Shriram Bhavan Kadkaa Chowk Ajmer. 2. Officer In Charge And Senior Superintendent Post Office, Ajmer Zone Ajmer For Government Of India Through Postmaster (General) Office, Opposite Savitri Girls School Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raunak Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mandar Bhatodkar, Mr. Parag Rastogi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 06/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in Rent Appeal No. 21/2018 (CIS No. 21/2018) titled "Officer In Charge and Senior Superintendent Post Office Vs. Smt. Kanta & Anr." as well as the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Original Application No. 332T/2012(5/2008) titled as "Smt. Kanta Vs. Chandershekhar & Ors.," whereby the application filed for eviction was allowed. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders suffer from perversity and are unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The petitioner is not liable to pay the rent as directed by the learned Rent Tribunal and upheld by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:40347] (2 of 3) [CW-8860/2025] 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that possession of the property was handed over to the respondent No.1, and the liability to pay the rent is specifically fastened upon the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in both the orders so as to warrant any interference by this Court, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record. 5. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the original eviction petition was filed in the year 2008, and after a detailed trial, the same was allowed vide order dated 20.01.2018. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under: "1– ्ቚ्ቓቕኍगण किरायेशुदा परिरसर ा ्ቈा छ: माह में अቌኍदार प्ቌ ो सुपुद रे, छ: माह में ्ቈा सुपुद नहीं किए ቌኍाने पर अቌኍदार प्ቌ छ: माह प्ቐात किरायशुदा परिरसर ा ्ቈा ्ቚा्቎ रने ा अकि$ारी होगा। 2– छ: माह में ्ቈा सुपुद किए ቌኍाने ी ቝኌ'कित में अቌኍदारिरया ्ቚ्ቓቕኍगण से किरायशुदा परिरसर े उपयोग उपभोग े एवቌኍ में 45/– रु० ्ቚकितमाह ी दर से किराया ्ቚा्቎ र सें गे तቕኍा छ: माह में ्ቈा सुपुद नहीं किए ቌኍाने ी ቝኌ'कित में ्ቈा ्ቚमाणप्ቔ ቌኍारी किए ቌኍाने ी कितकिቕኍ से तीन गुना दर से अंतालीन लाभ े रूप में ्ቚ्ቓቕኍगण से किराया ्ቚा्቎ र सें गे। 3– अቌኍदार ्ቚ्ቓቕኍ सं्ቅा 1 से किदनां 15.01.06 से 14.8.07 त ा किराया 4500/– रु . ्ቚकितमाह ी दर से 85500/– रूपये व 15.8.07 से किदनां 31.12.07 त हቌኍाना राकिश 4500/– रूपये ्ቚकितमाह ी दर से 20250/– रूपये ु ल 1,05,750/– रूपये ्ቚा्቎ रने ी अकि$ारिरणी है। 3– तदनुसार ्ቈा व वसूली ्ቚमाणप्ቔ ቌኍारी हो। 4– आदेश ी ्ቚकित $ारा 17 राቌኍ० किराया किनयं्ቔण अकि$किनयम, 2001 े तहत ्ቚ्ቓቕኍगण ो दी ቌኍावे व उस पर इस बात ा पृ्቗ांन अंकित किया ቌኍावे कि यह उ्ሹ ्ቚाव$ान े तहत दी ቌኍा रही है। 5– प्ቌारण ो अपील किराया अकि$रण, अቌኍमेर े सम्ቌ उपቝኌ'त होने हेतु किदनां 05.04.2018 हेतु पाबंद किया ቌኍाता है।" [2025:RJ-JP:40347] (3 of 3) [CW-8860/2025] 6. It is an undisputed fact that the present petitioner has not assailed the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, and only respondent No. 2 - Post Office has preferred an appeal against said order. After a detailed consideration of the matter, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 19.10.2024, dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 and affirmed the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. 7. From the above facts, it is evident that the petitioner herein has not challenged the original order dated 20.01.2018 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay rent and mesne profit from 15.01.2006 to 13.12.2007 @ Rs.4,500/- p.m. Thus, the said impugned order dated 20.01.2018 has attained finality qua the petitioner. Therefore, now the present petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the findings of the learned Rent Tribunal without preferring a first appeal by way of this writ petition; rather, petitioner is estopped from assailing the said orders due to his own conduct. 8. Further, it is also evident that the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/16