HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No.431/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19853/2013 Sardar Balbir Singh (Deceased) S/o Late Sardar Balwant Singh Basur, Through His Legal Representative Smt. Mahinder Kaur (Deceased) W/o Late Sardar Balbir Singh, R/o 9/359, Chataiganj, Opp. Anand Bhawan, Ganj, Ajmer (Raj). 1/1. Harpreet Singh Basur S/o Late Sardar Balbir Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 9/359, Chataiganj, Opp. Anand Bhawan, Ganj, Ajmer (Raj). ----Petitioners/non-applicant Versus 1. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer. 2. Ajeet Jain S/o Indra Chand Jain, (Tenant Of Shop No. 13 And 54) Proprietor Arihant Enterprises Shop No. 13 And 54, Khailand Market, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondent/applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal with Mr. Laxmi Kant and Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/11/2025 1. Matter comes up on writ misc. application submitted by the applicant/respondent-tenant seeking clarification of the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19853/2013 submitted by the petitioner. (2 of 4) [WMAP-431/2025] 2. Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner submits that the non-applicant/petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 against the applicant/respondent before the Rent Tribunal and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 30.11.2005 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the applicant/respondent and the rent was redetermined as Rs.3298/-. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicant/respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same was partly allowed vide judgment dated 19.08.2013 and the order passed by the Rent Tribunal was quashed and set aside and the rent was redetermined as Rs.560/- per month, which was revised at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the non- applicant/petitioner approached this Court by way of filing aforesaid writ petition and the matter was disposed of on the basis of the compromise suggested by both sides and this Court has passed the following order: “12. Considering the above submissions made by counsel for the respective parties, these writ petitions stand disposed of in the following terms:- 1. The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal stands quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Rent Tribunal stands restored and upheld and the eviction application submitted by the petitioner against the respondents stands allowed. 2. The respondents shall be entitled to continue in possession of the subject premises till 25.02.2027 but not beyond that, subject to condition that they will hand over the vacant and (3 of 4) [WMAP-431/2025] peaceful possession of the rented premises to the petitioner on or before 25.02.2027. 3. The respondents-Ajeet Jain and Vijayraj Parashar shall deposit the arrears of rent, due if any, up to 06.11.2025 and shall continue to deposit the monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively with the Bank account of the petitioner by 15th of each successive month. 4. The respondents shall not alienate or otherwise create third party right or hand over the possession of the rented premises in question to anyone. 5. In case, the respondents fail to deposit the rent consecutively for a period of four months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Rent Tribunal without further reference to the Court. 13. Further the respondents shall submit an undertaking on oath incorporating the aforesaid conditions before the Rent Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. In case, the respondents fail to submit the undertaking as aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today and / or commits breach of any of the conditions of this order, the petitioner shall be entitled to execute the order passed by the Rent Tribunal forthwith and shall obtain the possession of the rented premises in accordance with law.” 3. Counsel for the applicant-respondent submits that some confusion has arisen between the parties, hence notice and cross-notices have been issued by them to each other. Both the parties are ready to withdraw their respective notices, but a clarification be made in the order that the respondents would continue to deposit monthly rent @ Rs.4000/- and Rs.6000/- respectively in the bank account of the petitioner by 15th of (4 of 4) [WMAP-431/2025] each successive month and the premises would be vacated on or before 25.02.2027. 5. Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner has no objection in case such clarification is made. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel appearing for the parties, the instant writ misc. application stands disposed of with the aforesaid clarification. 7. This order would be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 05.08.2025. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/261