// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5173/2008 Yogesh Chand S/o Shri Madan Lal Gupta Versus The Judge, Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Another Date of Order ::: 30.06.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ajay Goyal, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The landlord-respondent No.2 filed an application for eviction in respect of rented premise against the tenant- petitioner in the Rent Tribunal. During the pendency of that application for eviction, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC on 9th October, 2007 stating therein that the applicant's son for whose necessity the present application has been filed for eviction are well-settled and they are doing their business separately, therefore, a separate issue may be framed in this regard. The said application was contested by the landlord by filing written- reply. The trial court considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and dismissed the application filed by the defendant-petitioner vide order dated 10th April, 2008, which has been impugned in this writ petition. // 2 // The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC as the issue which was mentioned in the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was separate and independent, and was necessary to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the order of the trial court is liable to be set- aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order. The trial court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and has observed that there is specific issue No.2 in this regard wherein the present issue which is said to be framed newly by the defendant is included. The reason assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application appears to be perfectly justified and I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//