1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Ikbal Bhisti Versus Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2291/2008 ....... Date of Order : 08/05/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Manoj Joshi for the petitioner. BY THE COURT:- By the instant writ petition, the order Annex.4 dated 11.2.2008 passed by respondent No.1 Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short 'the appellate tribunal' hereinafter) has been challenged. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001 hereinafter) before the respondent No.2 Rent Tribunal, Udaipur against the petitioner seeking eviction from the premises and payment of arrears of rent. The Rent Tribunal allowed the application vide order Annex.3 dated 2 17.1.2007 directing eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises and payment of arrears of rent, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 appellate tribunal. On examination of the record of the rent tribunal and reappreciation of the evidence and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 (a) (aa) r/w Section 151 CPC requesting the appellate tribunal to take on record the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Council, Udaipur and Transfer Certificate issued by Headmistress, Bright Academy Public School, Udaipur. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the rent tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal fell in error in treating the sufficient service of notice on the petitioner tenant. The notice is said to have been served on Praveen Bano daughter of the petitioner who according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the relevant time, was minor. On careful perusal of the order passed by the rent tribunal, it appears that no such plea was taken by the petitioner 3 tenant before the rent tribunal that the notice served on his daughter Praveen Bano is not a proper service as she is minor. On the contrary, this fact has been established before the rent tribunal that a notice has been served on the petitioner through his daughter Praveen Bano. The petitioner has not annexed the copy of the notice which said to have been served on Praveen Bano, with the instant writ petition and thus the document is not on record which sought to be assailed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 9 of the Act of 2001 deals with eviction of tenants and provides that an application seeking eviction on the ground of default can be filed by the landlord only if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months. Second proviso to Section 9 (a) of the Act of 2001 provides that no petition on the ground under this clause shall be filed unless the landlord has given a notice to the tenant by registered post, acknowledgement due, demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent within a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice was served on minor daughter and it was no service and therefore, the petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was not maintainable. It appears from the record that firstly the notice has 4 been served on the daughter of the petitioner Praveen Bano, the petitioner had knowledge of the notice having served on minor daughter and as such it cannot be said that the notice as envisage under Section 9 (a) of the Act of 2001 has not been served on the petitioner tenant and, therefore, it was a proper service of notice. The petitioner contested the case before the rent tribunal and no such plea was taken before the Rent Tribunal. Since there was no plea taken by the petitioner before the rent tribunal in this respect and therefore, there was no issue and without there being any issue to this effect, none of the parties led any evidence. The document notice sought to be assailed has not been annexed with the writ petition. In this view of the matter, in my view, no case for interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp 5 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 4148/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2291/2008 (Ikbal Bhisti Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors. Date of order : 08.05.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Manoj Joshi for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp