AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Rastogi
Instant petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner vide order dt.24.2.2012. Eviction application u/s 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed by respondent No.2-landlord of the demised premises against the respondents No.3 & 4 (Tenants).
It has been informed to this Court that the eviction application has ripen for final hearing. At this stage, the application came to be filed by the present petition under order 1 Rule 10 CPC on the premise that the demised property is their ancestral property and the suit for partition was filed, however, it was dismissed on 25.5.2004 against which appeal has been preferred in this Court and the parties are directed to maintain status quo.
Counsel submits that the petitioner is claiming his share in the demised premises and in such circumstances, if he is not impleaded as one of the co-applicant in the pending eviction application, his rights will be seriously jeopardized.
so far as eviction application filed by respondent No.2 under the Rent Control Act, 2001 is concerned, the only question which is to be examined by the Tribunal is whether the case regarding eviction u/s 9 of the Act, 2001 is made out and the Tribunal is not supposed to decide the title/ownership of the demised property in question. The order passed by the Tribunal on eviction application is in no manner affect the rights of the parties in first appeal No.820/2004 pending in this Court and it is not the subject matter for the Tribunal to examine except what has been indicated above.
Taking note thereof, this Court does not find any apparent error being committed by the Tribunal in passing the order impugned dt.24.2.2012, which requires interference of this Court. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.