CW 4387/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4387/08 Bhagwan Dass Vs. Nirmal Kumar [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4393/08 Kailash Chand Vs. Nirmal Kumar DATE OF ORDER : 15/05/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. R.K. Agrawal, for petitioners Mr. L.L. Gupta ] for respondent Mr.Hemant Goyal ] *** Instant petitions have been filed by two separate petitioner-defendants questioning the order dt.14th December, 2007 passed by learned Rent Tribunal whereby their application for taking affidavits [Ex.A-34 to 36] and so also copy of the plaint which were filed by the respondent-plaintiff in another suit for personal & bonafide necessity of his another son Chetan, was rejected with cost of Rs.250/-. Respondent-plaintiff [landlord] filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal & bonafide necessity u/s.9 of Rent Control Act, 2001 for his son Jivendra. Matter is at the stage of cross- examination of plaintiff's witness. At this stage, application was filed by the petitioner- defendants. Applications in their respective suit CW 4387/08 [2] for eviction taking the statements which were recorded of the respondent [landlord] and of his another son Chetan and so also copy of the plaint to show that what was alleged by them at the time of eviction of property for his son Chetan, in no manner corroborates from what is being alleged by the respondent-plaintiff in the present suit filed for his another son Jivendra for whom the property is bonafidely needed for. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration material, observed that petitioner- defendant in Para 4 of written statement has specifically averred that both the alleged two shops which the respondent-plaintiff got vacated from their another tenant for personal & bonafide necessity for his son Chetan are still lying vacant and have not been utilized for any purpose for which it was got evicted and that can certainly be examined at the stage of his evidence being recorded or at the stage of cross- examination of plaintiff's witness. It has been further observed that since both the two alleged shops were required for personal & bonafide necessity for his son Chetan and present one for Jivendra has no inter-connection for the purposes of eviction which has been prayed for by the CW 4387/08 [3] respondent-plaintiff in the present suit. I have heard counsel for parties and after perusal of order impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error committed by learned Tribunal which may call for interference. But, so far as rejecting application with cost of Rs.250/- is concerned, it does not appear to be justified. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. However, so far as imposition of cost is concerned, there appears to be no justification, hence set aside. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA4387CW08 15-5.doc