1 14 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8685/2009. Babu Lal Vs. Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur & Anr. Date of Order :: 16th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Ashok Chhangani, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition against the order dated 27.07.2009 (Annex.5) as passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Appeal No. 32/2009 on the prayer for interim relief during the pendency of the appeal. A petition for eviction as filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner bearing No. 134/2006 came to be allowed by the order dated 07.03.2009 (Annex.1) issuing certificate for possession and holding the applicant entitled to the arrears of rent and so also the future rent/mesne profits. The Appellate Tribunal, while dealing with the appeal filed against the said order and while considering the prayer for interim relief, has directed by the impugned order dated 27.07.2009 that the appellant shall deposit the amount payable under the impugned order within a month in the bank account of the respondent (applicant) and would continue to deposit the future rent in such account; and with such 2 conditions, the eviction part of the order impugned has been ordered to remain stayed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner, while seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, that the right of the respondent-applicant to sue is seriously in question and such were the observations made by this Court also while disposing of CWP No. 5914/2007 as filed by the petitioner earlier. It is contended that as per the observations of this Court and on the grounds as taken by the petitioner, it was requisite of the Tribunal concerned to deal with the question of right to sue in the applicant concerned in an appropriate manner but then, without specific and categoric determination, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the eviction petition. It is submitted that when the very existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute, the petitioner ought not be forced to deposit the amount of rent of the demised premises in the bank account of the applicant. It is also suggested during the course of submissions that the petitioner, at the most, could have been asked to deposit the amount before the Tribunal concerned or he would furnish bank guarantee but there is no justification in forcing the petitioner to deposit the amount in the bank account of a person whose very right to sue is in serious dispute. The submissions do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. As the matter is being considered only in relation to the prayer for interim relief during the pendency of the appeal, this Court would not be making any comments on the merits of the 3 case but then, it appears from the perusal of the order dated 07.03.2009 that the Rent Tribunal has dealt with the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner and in paragraph 17 has recorded a specific finding on the basis of the evidence on record that the applicant is the landlord and the non-applicant, i.e., the present petitioner, is the tenant in the demised premises. With such finding and other findings in favour of the applicant, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the order for payment of rent/mesne profits and so also for eviction. In a challenge to such an order before the Appellate Tribunal, so far the monetory part is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted in declining the prayer for interim relief in that regard; and, the money being payable towards use and occupation of the demised premises, an order for its deposit in the bank account of the applicant-respondent remains unexceptionable. The petitioner's suggestion about making deposit before the Tribunal or furnishing bank guarantee, if not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal, there appears no reason for this Court to interfere and to pass any different order. The order impugned neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor leads to failure of justice. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//