HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No v. Ramswaroop Kumawat S/o Late Sh.madan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Karundiya Road

: Mr. Aditya Matolia For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Agarwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/05/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred as ‘Appellate Tribunal’) by which the application submitted by the petitioner regarding non-maintainability of cross-objection has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal on various counts, wherein, six issues were framed and issues (2 of 5) [CW-8082/2025] No.2, 3 and 4 were decided against the respondent and rest of the issues were decided against the petitioner vide judgment dated 02.11.2023, against which an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. Counsel submits that during pendency of the appeal submitted by the petitioner, the respondents submitted cross-objections with regard to issues No.2, 3 and 4. Counsel submits that there is no provision of filing cross-objection under the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that against the final order, which is passed partly against one party and partly against other party, both parties may prefer appeal. Counsel submits that instead of filing a separate appeal, the respondent has filed cross-objections, which are not maintainable, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the Rent Tribunal vide its judgment dated

02.11.2023 decided three issues against the petitioner and three issued against the respondent. Counsel submits that when an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid three issues, before the Appellate Tribunal, there was no bar of filing cross-objection with regard to three issues, which were decided against the respondents by Rent Tribunal, hence, an application was submitted in the form of cross-objections before the Appellate Tribunal. Counsel submits that the Appellate Tribunal passed an order dated

01.05.2025 stating that both appeal as well as the cross- objection would be heard together and the case was posted for (3 of 5) [CW-8082/2025]

14.05.2025. Counsel submits that by passing the aforesaid order, the maintainability of cross-objection was considered that is why, this order was passed and the case was posted for arguments on the next date and this order has not been assailed by the petitioner before this Court or any other appropriate forum of law, hence, the order dated 01.05.2025 has attained finality. Counsel submits that the cross-objections submitted by the respondent were entertained by the Appellate Tribunal and the respondents were directed to pay Court fee and the Court fee has already been paid within the time prescribed i.e. 15 days and now, the case is posted for

31.05.2025 for hearing of arguments on appeal as well as the cross-objections, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner for his eviction on various counts and on the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the Rent Tribunal framed as many as six issues, out of which three issues were decided against the petitioner and three issues i.e. issues No.2, 3 and 4 were decided against the respondent vide judgment dated 02.11.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001 before the Appellate Tribunal and during pendency of the said appeal, the respondents submitted cross-objections with regard to issues No.2, 3 and (4 of 5) [CW-8082/2025]

4. An objection has been taken by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the aforesaid cross-objections before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that arguments would be heard on appeal and cross-objection on the next date and on the next date, the objection taken by the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated

14.05.2025.

6. Perusal of the provisions contained under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 deals with the procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal and it is specifically mentions at sub-Section (3) that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and both shall have the powers to regulate their own procedure and for the purpose of discharging their functions under the Act, they shall have the same powers as vested in CPC while trying a suit or appeal in respect of the matters mentioned therein.

7. At the same time Section 17 of the Act of 2001 says that if an order has been passed partly against a party and partly against other party, both parties would prefer separate appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.

8. This fact is not in dispute that the respondent has not preferred a separate appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 before the Appellate Tribunal. It is only the petitioner who has preferred this appeal under the said provision and during pendency of the said appeal, cross-objections have been submitted by the respondent, which have been initiated (5 of 5) [CW-8082/2025] by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2025 and now the case is posted for final arguments on 31.05.2025. Hence, at such stage, this Court refrains itself from making any comments.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, at the time of passing the final order, the Appellate Tribunal would take into count the provisions contained under Section 17 as well as the 21 of the Act of 2001 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/19