CWP-6233/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6233/2010 Kishan Chand Vs. Rent Tribunal, Tonk & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 21/05/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Om Prakash Jain, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner (tenant) assailing the two separate orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tonk dated 31/03/2010 (Anx.1 & 2) by which the applications filed by the defendant-petitioner (tenant) under Section 72 and 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 have been rejected. The plaintiff-respondent (landlord) filed eviction application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. After filing written statement and framing of issues, two separate applications were filed by the defendant-petitioner (tenant) under Sections 72 and 29 of the Act, 1959 and both were rejected vide order impugned. So far as the application filed under Section 72 of the Act, 1959 is concerned, it was rejected on the premise that the plaintiff- petitioner (landlord) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and for the purpose of deciding the matters CWP-6233/2010 2 relating to tenancy, relationship of the landlord and tenant has only to be seen and the defendant-petitioner (tenant) has got no right to make any objection with regard to the registration of the plaintiff-respondent (landlord) under the Act, 1959 and so far as the other application filed under Section 29 of the Act, 1959 is concerned, it was rejected on the premise that the plaintiff-respondent (landlord) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and with regard to the application of Section 29 of the Act, 1959, issue has been framed and will be examined at the final stage. It has come on record that the plaintiff- respondent (landlord) herein is already registered under the Societies Registrar Act, 1960. After hearing counsel for the defendant- petitioner(tenant) and going through the orders impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned trial Judge while rejecting both the applications, referred to above, vide orders dt. 31/03/2010 (Anx.1 & 2). Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.2/6233-CW2010-final.doc