[2025:RJ-JP:51288] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14100/2025 M/s M D Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. (Transport Company), 29, Bhagwan Nagar Society, Ishanpur, Ahemdabad Gujarat Through Director Shri Prithvi Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur Ka Pata-J-196 Fateh Tiba, Dhanna Das Ki Bagichi, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Firoz Khan Son Of Shri Ikram Khan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Plot No-3, Fateh Tiba, Dhanna Das Ki Bagichi, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramji Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manak Chand Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 18.12.2025 Date on which the judgment was reserved 18.12.2025 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment Date of pronouncement 06.01.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal No.2 (Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.5), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, as well as the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a rent application was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (2 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting, nuisance, causing damage to the rented premises, and bona fide requirement of the landlord. Apart from the aforesaid grounds, it was also pleaded that the petitioner-tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and, therefore, was liable to be evicted. 3. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide judgment dated 14.09.2022, allowed the rent application and granted a certificate of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord and availability of suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner-tenant. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I; however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2025. 5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Tribunals below, the present writ petition has been preferred. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord was required to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence and could not be permitted to take advantage of any alleged weakness in the defence of the petitioner. The burden to establish the existence of a landlord– tenant relationship squarely lay upon the respondent, which the respondent failed to discharge. 6.1. According to the petitioner, the respondent-landlord is the owner of only 1/4th share in the suit property and, therefore, the [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (3 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] certificate of eviction passed in respect of the entire premises is ex facie perverse, illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Tribunal. It was urged that no decree for eviction of the whole property could have been passed at the instance of a co- sharer without establishing exclusive ownership or authority from the remaining co-owners. 6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that merely payment of rent cannot establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore prayed that the judgment passed by both the learned Courts below may be quashed and set aside and the rent application of the respondent may be dismissed. 6.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original petition was filed against three respondents namely; M/s M.D. Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Dashrath Singh Shekhawat & Ajeet Singh Shekhawat. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the rent application, non-applicants No.2 & 3; Dashrath Singh Shekhawat and Ajeet Singh Shekhawat, respectively were deleted from the array of the parties. He submits that actually Dashrath Singh Shekhawat and Ajeet Singh Shekhawat were the tenants and therefore, there is no landlord tenant relationship between the present petitioner and the respondent. 6.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments: (i) Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority vs M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills; AIR 1998 SC 2352. [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (4 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] (ii) Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors.;1987 (2) SCC 555. (iii) Harshvardhan Chokkani vs Bhupendra N. Patel & Ors.; 2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments 95 (SC). (iv) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs.; AIR 2008 SC 2139. (v) Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs Manohar Singh & Anr.; 2006 (6) SCC 498. (vi) Municipal Corporation, Kota vs Judge, Industrial Tribunal; 2001 WLC (UC) 607. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that as per the pleadings of the parties, the respondent in the rent application itself had specifically pleaded the fact of oral partition of the disputed property. It is further submitted that there is a clear and categorical averment in the rent application that the petitioner-tenant had paid the last rent in January, 2013, a fact which was never specifically denied. 7.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further drew attention of this Court to the reply filed by the present petitioner before the learned Rent Tribunal, particularly paragraph No.15, wherein the petitioner-tenant had unequivocally admitted the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship between the parties. 7.2. Learned counsel for the respondent also drew attention of this Court to the definition of “landlord” under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2001’), and submits that as per the definition available, there is no necessity of a person to be the owner of the property. Any person who is [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (5 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] receiving or entitled to receive rent in respect of the premises falls within the ambit of “landlord” under the Act of 2001. 7.3. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that an eviction petition is maintainable at the instance of a co-owner of the property also. It is further contended that none of the other co-owners has disputed or objected to the filing of the eviction petition and, therefore, the tenant is not entitled to raise any objection on this ground. 7.4. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Legal Heirs of Late Shri Jabbar Singh Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan; 2019 (1) WLC (Raj.) 326. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court finds that the eviction petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner. In the reply, the petitioner- tenant has categorically admitted the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The relevant portion of reply is reproduced herein below: "15. यह कि अቌኍ ी मद सं्ቅा-9 (7) ቌኍो अቌኍ में मद सं्ቅा- 9 (8) अंकित ी गयी है, में अቌኍदार व ्ቚ्ቓቕኍ े म्ቖ मान माकि व किरायेदार ा स्ቚंध ्ቝाकि त होना ्ቭीार है तቕኍा ्ቚ्ቓቕኍ ्ቛारा अቌኍदार ो सन् 1994 से किराया किदया ቌኍाना ्ቭीार हैं, शेष त्ቔ अቌኍदार ्ቭयं किस्ቍ रे।" 10. A bare perusal of this paragraph is sufficient to establish the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently, the contention raised by the petitioner that no such relationship exists is wholly untenable. [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (6 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] 11. The argument of the petitioner that mere payment of rent is not sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant is also devoid of merit. Under the definition of “landlord” as contained in Section 2(c) of the Act of 2001, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "2(c) "landlord" means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant." 12. A bare perusal of the above definition clearly demonstrates that it is not necessary for a landlord to be the owner of the property; what is essential is the receiving of rent. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has been paying rent to the respondent. Further, the admission regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is sufficient to conclusively establish such relationship. Consequently, the respondent was fully entitled to institute the eviction petition. 14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is only the owner of 1/4th share of the property in dispute and, therefore, could not have sought eviction of the entire premises is also without merit. It is a settled principle of law that any one of the co-owners is competent to maintain a suit or petition for eviction against a tenant, and it is not mandatory that all co-owners be impleaded as parties. More so, impleadment of other co-owners is unnecessary in the present case, as the petitioner has admitted payment of rent to the [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (7 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] respondent for the entire premises. Having accepted the respondent as the landlord by paying rent for the whole property, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the respondent’s entitlement to file the eviction petition. 15. This Court finds support for the aforesaid conclusion from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal vs Kalawathibai & Ors.; (2002) 6 SCC 16, wherein it has been held as under: “16. It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 184, Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathan and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of tenant and it is no defence open to tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of tenant without joining the other co- owners if such other co-owners do not object. In Shri Ram Pasricha's case (supra) reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence the suit [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (8 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] would fail; the requirement must be of all the landlords. The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also satisfied the requirement of being "if he is the owner", the expression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.” 16. The next argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defendant, and reliance has been placed upon judgments in support of the said proposition. The said legal principle is not in dispute. However, in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, there is a clear and categorical admission on the part of the petitioner-tenant regarding the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship as well as the payment of rent. Such an admission cannot be construed as a weakness of the defendant. 17. It is a settled principle of law that an admitted fact does not require proof. This Court, therefore, finds no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count. 18. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as actual tenants i.e., non-applicants No.2 & 3 have been deleted from the array of respondents therefore, no eviction [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (9 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] decree could have been passed. This Court considers that the reply, which has been filed before the learned Tribunal is filed on behalf of the petitioner and the authorized signatory of the petitioner has submitted his affidavit in support of the reply. As per the admission in the reply by the petitioner, the argument thus raised is liable to be rejected. 19. The judgment in the case of Harshvardhan Chokkani (supra) did not help the petitioner as there it was held that merely payment of rent does not entitle a person to be declared as tenant. Here it is a case where the tenant paying the rent and landlord accepting the rent, the definition of “landlord” as available under the Act of 2001 applies and the respondents are landlords. So far as the judgments of Bhagwan Das (supra) as well as Baldev Singh (supra) are concerned the same are not relevant for the purpose of determination of the issue. Even otherwise also, no permission can be granted to withdraw the admission at this stage. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no force in the writ petition and no illegality or perversity is found to have been committed by the learned Rent Tribunal or the learned Appellate Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. 22. No order as to cost. [2025:RJ-JP:51288] (10 of 10) [CW-14100/2025] 23. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/105