CW 7390/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7390/2010 Suresh Soni & Anr. Vs. Newly Constructed Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr. Date Of Order :: 21/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. G.D. Parwal, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner (tenant) assailing the order dt.12.4.2010 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Order 13 Rule 3 read with sec.151 CPC has been rejected. The respondent – non – petitioner- plaintiff filed eviction application u/s.9 of the Act,01 before the Rent Tribunal and after the written statement was filed, the non- petitioner-plaintiff filed counter affidavit, along with it a partition deed dt.22.12.1974 was also placed on record, which has been marked as Ex.26, at this stage, the petitioner-defendant filed application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC on the premise that in absence of family settlement being registered, the same cannot be exhibited and in these circumstances, the document which has been taken on record as Ex.26 may be deleted from the record and in support of the submissions counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment CW 7390/10 (2) rendered in the case of Bankey Behari vs. Surya Narain alias Munnoo, reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 393. It will be relevant to observe that present eviction proceedings have been initiated under the Act,01 where the learned Tribunal has been called upon to examine about the relationship of the landlord and tenant and the question whether defendant-petitioner is liable to be evicted from the rented premises in question under the provisions of Act,01. The submission made by the counsel that family settlement being unregistered could not be exhibited, is of no substance for the reason that it is not a case where title of the rented premises is to be examined by the Tribunal and the document has been exhibited and placed on record only to show that non-petitioner-plaintiff is the landlord of the property in question, in absence whereof, the submission made in the facts of the instant case is without substance as the judgment on which counsel has placed reliance has no application to the facts of the instant case. This Court does not find any error being committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned which may call for CW 7390/10 (3) interference. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.3 7390cw10May21Fnl.doc