[2025:RJ-JP:27150] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 21/2021 Yogesh Paliwal Son Of Omprakash, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 8 A 5, Maahaver Nagar Third Choraha Kota (Raj.) ----Revisionist-Non-Applicant (Tenant) Versus 1. Harsh Kumar Jain Son Of Mulchand, R/o 9 G 1, Mahaveer Nagar Third, Kota (Raj.) 2. Rajkumari Jain W/o Harsh Kumar Jain, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 9 G 1, Mahaveer Nagar Third, Kota (Raj.) ---Non- Revisionists/Applicants(Landlord) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhinav Kasliwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 22 /07/2025 The revision petition has been filed by the revisionist-non- applicant(for short ‘the non-applicant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Petition No.06/2019, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 19-A of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’). Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the non- revisionists–applicants (for short ‘the applicants’) filed an application under Section 19-A of the Act, 2001 for recovery of arrears of the rent mentioning therein that the non-applicant is a tenant of the tenanted premises at the rate of rent of Rs.4,000/ per month but he did not pay the rent since 01.12.2005. [2025:RJ-JP:27150] (2 of 3) [CR-21/2021] Learned counsel for the non-applicant further submits that the applicants filed an application under Section 19-A of the Act, 2001 before the Tribunal praying therein that the non-applicant may be directed to pay the rent of Rs.4,000/- per month of the disputed premises to the applicants from 01.12.2005 (totaling Rs.1,44,000/-). Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that the Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2020 committed an error while allowing the application filed by the applicants and directing the non-applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as rent of the disputed premises to the applicants. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that the applicants had not submitted any document(s) that rent of the disputed premises was Rs.4,000/- per month. So, the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the Tribunal be set-aside. Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant and submitted that the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the Tribunal is not final order. The impugned order is an interim order and has not attained finality. So, the present revision petition filed by the non-applicants is not maintainable. He further submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2020 clearly mentioned that the non-applicant would continue to pay the rent Rs.4,000/- per month to the applicants. If the rent of the tenanted premises is determined less than Rs.4,000/- per month then additional amount paid by the non-applicant and the balance amount could be recovered by the non-applicant from the applicants. So, the petition filed by the non-applicant be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:27150] (3 of 3) [CR-21/2021] Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659:- I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant as well as learned counsel for the applicants. It is an admitted position that the Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2020 while allowing the application filed by the applicants under Order 19-A of the Act, 2001 directed the non-applicant to pay monthly rent Rs.4,000/- of the tenanted premises. The tribunal observed that if the rent of the tenanted premises is determined less than Rs.4,000/- per month then additional amount paid by the non-applicant and the balance amount could be recovered by the non-applicant from the applicants. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in giving direction to the non-applicant to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- of the tenanted premises to the applicants. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/74