[2025:RJ-JP:16235] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4986/2025 Bhag Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh, Indian Electrics House, Shop No. 259, Johri Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Sunita Suresh Sancheti W/o Suresh Sancheti, R/o 1701, Midtown Apartment, Bg Kher Road, Worli, Mumbai, Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Suresh Sancheti S/o Ratan Chand Sancheti, R/o 1701, Midtown Apartment, Bg Kher Road, Worli, Mumbai. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashodhar Pandey JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by which the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II has been upheld and the order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question was let out to the petitioner by the landlady Chameli Bai in the year 1976, who died on 16.12.2015 and, thereafter, on the basis of the Will dated 15.12.2013, an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondent, who claims herself to be the daughter-in-law of Chameli Bai and owner of the premises on the basis of the [2025:RJ-JP:16235] (2 of 4) [CW-4986/2025] registered will. Learned counsel submits that landlady Chameli Bai was having other legal decendents and the respondent is simply her daughter-in-law. Learned counsel submits that when the notice of eviction was served by the respondent upon the petitioner with regard to payment of rent and arrears, an objection was taken that she is not entitled to receive the same unless probate order is passed in her favour. Learned counsel submits that till filing of the eviction application, no probate was produced on the record and for the first time the probate order dated 27.10.2016 was brought on the record by the respondent by way of filing rejoinder on 31.08.2017. Learned counsel submits that the eviction application was filed by an incompetent person but this fact has not been appreciated by the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal and the orders impugned have been passed which are not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was and is ready to pay the rent, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the premises in question belongs to one Chameli Bai. This fact is also not in dispute that the premises in question was let out to the petitioner by the landlady Chameli Bai in the year 1976. This fact is also not in dispute that the registered Will was executed by her on 15.12.2013 in favour of the respondent, which happens to be her [2025:RJ-JP:16235] (3 of 4) [CW-4986/2025] daughter-in-law. On the basis of the said registered Will, she served a notice to the petitioner for paying rent and its arrears but the same was not paid by the petitioner with the objection that she is not the only legal representative of late landlady Chameli Bai, who passed away on 16.12.2015 and that was the precise reply submitted by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, where an application was submitted by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default of payment of arrears of rent. This fact is not in dispute that the probate of the will was issued by the competent court in favour of the respondent on 27.10.2016 i.e. on the very same day when the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by respondent meaning thereby she became landlady of the premises in question on 27.10.2016 but inspite of the above, the petitioner has failed to pay the rent and its arrears to her and on this ground of the order of eviction has been passed by the Tribunal and came to be upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. This Court finds no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was and is ready to pay the rent and its arrears, as no steps were taken by him even after having the knowledge of probate being issued by the competent court in favour of the respondent in the year 2017. More than eight years have been passed till date still the default is continuing by the petitioner. 7. This Court finds no merit and substance in the writ petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:16235] (4 of 4) [CW-4986/2025] 8. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/31