[2025:RJ-JP:27136] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4174/2024 1. Mohan Lal Sarraf S/o Late Shri Bala Ram Ji Agarwal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 32, Kamal Gatta, Janta Bazar, Near Govind Dev Ji Temple, Jaipur. 2. Harish Chand Agarwal S/o Late Shri Bala Ram Ji Agarwal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o A-17, New Light Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. M/s Triveni Fabrics, Through Its Partner Sajal Diwan S/o Sh. Shambhu Dayal Diwan, Aged About 28 Years, Having Business Address Showroom No. 2 Rishi Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur And R/o Plot No. 23, Suraj Nagar (West) Keshav Path, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 2. M/s Triveni Fabrics, Through Its Partner Smt. Neetu Diwan W/o Sh. Shambhu Dayal Diwan, Aged About 48 Years, Having Business Address Showroom No. 2, Rishi Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur And R/o Plot No. 23, Suraj Nagar (West), Keshav Path, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 3. M/s Triveni Textile, Through Its Partner Sh. Shambhu Dayal Diwan, Having Business Address Showroom No. 2, Rishi Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur And R/o Plot No. 23, Suraj Nagar (West), Keshav Path, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.L. L. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr.O. P. Mishra JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Rent Tribunal-I, Jaipur Metro-I, by which the application submitted by [2025:RJ-JP:27136] (2 of 3) [CW-4174/2024] the petitioners under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a rent eviction application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the petitioners against the respondents and during pendency of the said application, an application under Section 19- A of the Act of 2001 was submitted seeking direction against the respondents to pay the rent and due arrears. Counsel submits that the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.10.2022 directed the respondents to submit the bank statement to show whether the rent and due arrears have been paid to the petitioners or not, but no such bank stateent was submitted by the respondents and only an argument was made that no rent is due and no arrears are due and relying upon such statement made by the respondents, the application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that no rent or its arrears are due against the respondents and this fact has been pleaded in the reply and after considering the same, the order impugned has been passed. Counsel submits that now, the matter is at the stage of recording the evidence of both the sides, the petitioners would have ample opportunity to prove his allegations levelled against the petitioners. Counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent order has been passed by the Tribunal which requires no interference of this Court, hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:27136] (3 of 3) [CW-4174/2024] 4. Perusal of the record as well as the documents available on the record indicates that when the application under Section 19-A was submitted by the petitioners against the respondents, an order was passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents to submit the bank statement. It appears that no bank statement was submitted by the respondents and relying upon the contention raised by the respondents, the order impugned has been passed. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the provision contained under Section 19-A is mandatory in nature and it was expected from the Tribunal to decide the application submitted by the landlord on the basis of the evidence/ documents available on the record. An application cannot be decided on the basis of oral averments made by either side, hence, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. The instant writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the application afresh on the basis of the documents submitted by both the sides, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush sharma /46.