HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 789/2023
1. Arjun Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Mainpura, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
2. Asha Devi W/o Late Arjun Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Mainpura Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
3. Mahendra Singh Bhati S/o Late Shri Arjun Singh Bhati, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Hakim Haveli, Mainpura, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
4. Puna Chauhan W/o Ramesh Singh Chauhan, D/o Late Arjun Singh Bhati, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Mainpura Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
5. Kanchan Kanwar W/o Ravinder Singh, D/o Late Arjun Singh Bhati, Resident Of Dhauva, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Janak Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
2. Shridevi D/o Late Arjun Singh Bhati aged about 39 years, resident of Mainpura, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer. ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manas Ranchor Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Leeladhar Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order
06/05/2026
1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, whereby the prayer of the tenant-petitioner seeking permission to file a counter to the rejoinder submitted at the instance of the landlord, the respondent herein, was rejected.
1
(2 of 2)
[CW-789/2023]
2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order dated 08.09.2022, and particularly the averments made in the eviction petition, the reply and the rejoinder, it is felt that, in fact, the petitioner never denounced the capacity of the respondent as landlord in express terms. A plain reading of the reply, particularly paragraph 10 thereof, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner never denied the capacity of the respondent as landlord. The plea taken by the respondent- landlord in his rejoinder that the petitioner had denounced the landlord-tenant relationship and denied accepting the respondent as landlord is per se not convincing, since no such plea was taken in the reply.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No interference by this Court is called for in the impugned order. It is made clear that the petitioner-tenant never denied the status or capacity of the respondent as landlord.
4. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
197-Samvedana/-
2