[2025:RJ-JP:40516] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14736/2022 Mandir Trust Shri Raghunath Mharaj, (Marwad) Namdev Samaj, Through President Bhagwan Son of Shri Laxminarayan Nama aged about 63 Year, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus Rajesh Son of Shri Ramratan Nama, aged about 33 Years, Resident of Khandar Road, City Sawaimadhopur (Raj) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agrawal with Mr. Sahwan Naqvi For Respondent(s) : 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 03.09.2022 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur in Appeal No.16/2019 and order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhorpur in Original Application No.13/2018 titled as Mandir Trust Shri Raghunath Mharaj (Marwad) Namdev Samaj Vs. Rajesh. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal, rejecting the eviction petition are perverse in the eyes of the law, therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:40516] (2 of 3) [CW-14736/2022] 4. Admittedly, in the present case, the eviction petition was filed on three grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, denial of title and the property being in a dilapidated condition. While deciding the said issues, the learned Tribunal has categorically held that it is an admitted case of the parties that the amount due was deposited within 30 days of the legal notice, as such, the applicant-petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has committed any default in payment of the rent. 5. Similarly, both the courts below concurrently held that from the pleadings of the parties and conduct of the respondent, it is not reflected that the respondent has ever denied the title of the landlord; rather, he himself has admitted to be a tenant in the property. Therefore, both the courts below have observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove the said issue and have accordingly decided the same in favour of the respondent. 6. Lastly, while deciding issue No.3, i.e., the property is in a dilapidated condition, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of eviction, was also held unsustainable by the courts below for the reason that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the said issue with requisite evidence and pleadings. 7. Therefore, both the courts below concurrently held that the petitioner had failed to prove the issues of default of payment of rent, denial of title, and that the property is in a dilapidated condition. Accordingly, the courts below dismissed the eviction petition. 8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is evident that both the courts below have considered the evidence of the parties [2025:RJ-JP:40516] (3 of 3) [CW-14736/2022] at length and recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner has failed to prove the grounds of eviction. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /10