IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6913 of 2005. Smt. Radha Devi wife of Shri Madan Mohan V E R S U S Rent Control, Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk and Others Date Of Order ::: 30/05/2008. Present Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Shri M.K. Jain, Counsel for the Petitioners. Shri Amit Gupta, advocate, for Shri B.L. Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondents ##### By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter has come-up for orders on the application filed by the respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte stay order dated 18.11.2005, but at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition itself was heard and, is being disposed of finally. The petitioner Smt. Radha Devi has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure-7) passed by the Rent Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. has been dismissed. The learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that in respect of one property the applicant/ petitioner Smt. Radha Devi filed a suit for eviction against the respondent Prabhu Lal and, another suit against Prabhu Lal has been filed by Ganesh Lal and others. The applicant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. in a suit filed by Ganesh Lal and others contending therein that tenant Prabhu Lal has executed a registered rent-note in favour of applicant Smt. Radha Devi dated 17.11.1978, whereas the present suit in respect of same property by Ganesh Lal and others have been filed on the ground that they are the owners of the same property on the basis of registered sale-deed executed by the legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal, who has registered sale-deed of the property in his favour. There is no dispute that the present suit is also in respect of same property for which the applicant has also filed a suit for eviction against the same defendant. The better course in the case would have been to consolidate both the suits and to give directions to the Court below to decide them simultaneously, but the learned counsel for both the parties contended that Smt. Radha Devi filed a suit under the provisions of Old Rent Tribunal Act, whereas Ganesh Lal and others have filed an application for eviction under the provisions of the New Rajasthan Rent Control Act. Both the suits are pending in different Courts. From the facts mentioned and discussed above, I am of the view that the applicant is necessary party in the present application for eviction filed by Ganesh Lal and others and, the trial Court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.08.2005 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner Smt. Radha Devi under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, C.P.C. is allowed. She is impleaded, as defendant/respondent, in the application before the Rent Tribunal, filed by Ganesh Lal and others. The cost is made easy. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondents and the same stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/