S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7073/2006 Rajendra Sharma & another Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur & others Date of Order :: 25th February 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.B.M.Bhojak for the petitioners Mr.S.G.Ojha for the respondents Mr.Om Mehta for the applicant .... BY THE COURT An application (IA No.2771/2009) has been moved today on behalf of the petitioners with the submissions that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur has been substituted by Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur and the description of respondents Nos.1 and 2 is accordingly required to be amended. Having regard to the circumstances and for the submissions made, the application (IA No.2771/2009) is allowed; amended cause title already filed is taken on record and be placed appropriately. An application (IA No.490/2009) has been moved by the applicant-Chitranjan Jain seeking impleadment in this writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that he has purchased the property in question on 08.05.2006; and such application is sought to be opposed by the petitioners with the submissions that the applicant has no concern with the subject matter of 1 this writ petition and even his sale deed cannot be co-related with the property in question. Looking to the subject matter of litigation and the orders already passed by this Court in disposal of cognate writ petitions involving similar and akin issues, it appears appropriate to decide this writ petition finally, rather than passing any order on the said application or to deal with the ancillary dispute pertaining to the rights of the applicant. The petitioners in this writ petition have alleged that in the year 1985 their father had taken the shop in question on rent from its erstwhile owner; and now they were carrying on business in the said shop. According to the petitioners, the shop in question was purchased by the respondent No.3 Radha Kishan under a sale deed dated 06.02.1993 and thereby, the father of the petitioners became tenant of the respondent No.3 and since thereafter, had been making payment of rent at Rs.350/- per month to the respondent No.3. The petitioners have alleged that the respondent No.3 was intending to raise a multi-storied commercial complex by joining different plots of land but the shop in question being of impediment, hence, in collusion with the officers of the Urban Improvement Trust, a notice dated 15.06.2006(Annex.1) was got issued to the petitioners that it being a residential plot, commercial activities were not permitted thereat; and the 2 petitioners were called upon to vacate the disputed shop within a week. The notice so issued and the order passed thereafter on 30.10.2006 (Annex.3) have been challenged in this writ petition as being entirely unauthorised. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court entertained this writ petition on 08.12.2006 and passed the following interim order:- ''In the meanwhile, the petitioner will deposit the commercial charges subject to the realisation from the landlord and the landlord will show cause as to why he rented out a shop without commercial conversion and in this light he will make necessary application to the UIT because he is already using other premises, also commercially. The petitioner will however, revise the rent and would pay to the landlord Rs.1000/- per month. The petitioner will deposit conversion charges within one month. Copy of the order be sent alongwith the notice. The UIT, on deposit being made, will not proceed against the petitioner.'' It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, the Urban Improvement Trust (Now Jodhpur Development Authority) is to take a final decision in the matter and it has been pointed out that similar writ petitions including CWP No.6737/2006 have already been decided by this Court directing the said Authority to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law and leaving it open for the petitioners concerned to take recourse to law, in case of any adverse order being passed. 3 The order as passed by this Court on 06.02.2008 in CWP No.6737/2006 effectively covers the subject matter of this writ petition and, in terms of the said order and terms of interim order as passed in this case, and to that extent, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, of course, while keeping it open for all the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, in case of any grievance remaining. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned orders are set aside but otherwise it is left open for the respondent-Jodhpur Development Authority to pass appropriate order in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. It shall remain open for the parties concerned to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law in case any grievance remains after passing of such order by the respondent- Jodhpur Development Authority. It is also made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the dispute put forward in relation to the application for impleadment (IA No.490/2009) as moved by the applicant – Chitranjan Jain. The said application stands rejected as redundant for the writ petition itself having been disposed of but, of course, with the clarification that it shall be permissible for the said applicant also to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 4 There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. 5