CW 5887/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5887/2010 Smt. Laxmi Devi & Ors Versus Rent Appellate Tribunal & Ors Date of Order : 14/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ashok Mehta & Mr. Nikhil Singhvi, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.16/02/2010 (Ann.2) whereby appeal preferred by respondent-2 (judgment debtor) against rejection of his application U/O 21, R.97 CPC vide order dt.07/01/09 (Ann.3) was allowed by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.13/2009. Suit for eviction was filed by Harish Chand (now deceased) impleading respondent-3 as defendant on the ground of default, personal & bonafide need. However, ex parte decree (Ann.2) was passed by Rent Tribunal on 03/12/2004 in Org. Rent Appl. No.412/04. When this fact came to the notice of Rajkumar Jajoo (respondent-2), claiming himself as Proprietor of Firm (M/s Rajkumar Basant Kumar Jajoo) and lessee having tenancy rights over rent premises, he filed application U/O 21 R.97, CPC, which was tried as a suit by the Rent Tribunal but was rejected vide order dt. 07/01/2009 (Ann.3) in Exc.Appl.No.19/2005 - against which respondent-2 preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, based on CW 5887/10 //2// certain documents for being taken on record particularly, a certificate issued by Central Bank of India where the Firm is running its bank account, and showing him to be Proprietor of M/s Rajkumar Basant Kumar Jajoo in the rented premises as tenant and since it was let out to the Firm as is evident from Ex.A/1, he also prayed by filing application U/O 16 R.6 CPC for taking documents on record in support of his defence, which alone will justify, as alleged, the Firm to be tenant of rented premises. Taking note of material on record, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent-2 vide judgment dt.16/02/2010 (Ann.4) and also permitted to take documents on record; remanded the matter back to the Rent Tribunal for deciding the application afresh in accordance with law. Counsel has tried to persuade this Court that Basant Kumar Jajoo having signed lease deed, in fact, was tenant and was impleaded as defendant but has not contested the matter and the decree was passed by the Rent Tribunal; and in such circumstances, application filed later on by respondent-2 U/O 21, R.97, CPC cannot be said to be legally sustainable and apart from document which he has relied for being taken on record by seeking permission through application U/O 16, R.6, CPC cannot now be considered since if CW 5887/10 //3// documents as sought for are permitted to be taken on record, it will certainly delay the proceedings while initiating before the Tribunal afresh; which may cause great prejudice to the petitioner. It has not been disputed that the property was let out to a Firm (M/s Rajkumar Basant Kumar Jajoo) and the respondent-2 who filed application is a partner of the Firm and was not a stranger to the proceedings. Having considered contentions of Counsel for petitioner and gone through orders impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, which may call for interference in the orders impugned. Consequently, the writ petition being without substance is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 5887CW09May14DsRnt.doc