1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER BIMAL KUMAR Vs. Rent Tribunal, Churu & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3626/2008 Date of Order : : 20/08/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioner. Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the respondent No.2 to 4. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 22nd January, 2008 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No.1, Rent Tribunal, Churu (for short “the Rent Tribunal” hereinafter) allowing the application dated 28th November, 2007 (Annexure-1) filed by the respondents No. 2 to 5 (for short “the landlord” hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in a petition filed by respondents-landlord under Section 9 of the 2 Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001” hereinafter), the petitioner-tenant filed a reply supported by an affidavit. Thereafter, the respondents-landlord filed a rejoinder and set up a new case in the rejoinder. Along with the rejoinder, the respondents-landlord filed certain document mainly voter-list. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Tribunal has erred in permitting the respondents-landlord to file rejoinder and taking the same on record. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the rejoinder, no new ground has been raised and the case originally set up by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the premises, which is subject matter of the petition, has been reiterated by the rejoinder because in the reply to the petition filed by the respondent-landlord, the petitioner-tenant has taken additional pleas and one of the plea was that respondents-landlord are not residing at Churu but are residing at Haryana and carrying on a business therein that has been controverted by filing a rejoinder and along with rejoinder, the copy of the voter-list showing the names of the respondents-landlord in the voter-list prepared by the Return Officer of the area of Churu Assembly/Parliamentary Constituency. 3 I have carefully gone through the rejoinder filed by the respondent-landlords. In my view, by a rejoinder, the respondents-landlord have not set up any new case or a ground of eviction than what has originally been set up in the petition filed by them under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. By rejoinder, the respondents landlord has reiterated the stand taken in the original petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Moreso, the controversy raised in the instant writ petition is concluded by a decision of this Court in Anop Chand Vs. Nand Kishore & Ors., 2007(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1636. In the case of Anop Chand Vs. Nand Kishore & Ors. (Supra), while considering the provisions of Section 15(4) and Section 21 of the Act of 2001, this court held that there is no prohibition in filing the affidavit with rejoinder. Sub section (4) of Section 15 provides that the petitioner may thereafter file rejoinder, if any, after serving copy to the opposite party, within a period of thirty days from the date of service of reply. Thus, the provisions of Sub section (4) of Section 15 of the Act in clear terms provides for filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner and it contains no prohibition in filing of affidavits and documents with rejoinder. Section 21 deals with the procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 4 Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Anop Chand Vs. Nand Kishore & Ors (supra), in my view, the order impugned does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. The application being IA NO.9425/2008 filed by the respondents-landlord is allowed. Interim order dated 29th of May, 2008 stands vacated. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.6657/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3626/2008 Date of Order : : 20/08/2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioner. Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the respondent No.2 to 4. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. Interim order dated 29th of May, 2008 stands vacated. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK