CW 5324/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5324/2010 Late Gajendra Kr. Through L/rs Smt. Rajni Nawal Versus Appellate Rent Tribunal Ajmer & Ors Date of Order ::: 19/04/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Neeraj Kr. Tiwari, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed against judgment dt.21/02/2008 of the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in OA-166/05 and order dt.05/01/2010 of the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Ajmer whereby appeal-14/2008 preferred by petitioner (tenant) was dismissed for non- prosecution. It has been informed to this Court that after the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dt.05/02/2010 (Ann.3), application seeking restoration of appeal has been filed before appellate Tribunal, which is still pending. Main thrust of contention advanced by Counsel is that judgment of the Rent Tribunal while passing decree of eviction on 21/02/2008 (Ann.2) is per se bad and not sustainable and in fact, respondent-2 (plaintiff) was supposed to serve a notice U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act and notice U/s 19 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 could not be said to be sufficient compliance of the default as alleged being committed and recorded by Rent CW 5324/10 //2// Tribunal. The submission made (supra) is wholly bereft of merit and cannot be entertained for the reason that against judgment dt.21/02/2008 (Ann.2), petitioner (tenant) had preferred appeal which was dismissed by appellate Rent Tribunal for non-prosecution vide order dt. 05/01/2010 (Ann.3) - for restoration whereof, the application has already been filed and is pending for adjudication before the appellate Tribunal; in such circumstances, grievance having been raised herein is not available to question at this stage and such an objection being available under law certainly could have been raised before appellate tribunal. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to record that it is totally unwarranted litigation and it appears that parties are not being properly guided by Counsel. This court finds no justification to entertain instant petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 5324CW2010Apr19Ds.doc