Prakash Chand Vasandani S/o Shri Kishanchand Vasandani, Aged v. Prashant Sankhala S/o

Judgment

1. Prashant Sankhala S/o Shri Kanakraj Sankhala, R/o Flat No. 401, Valon Building, Raheja Acropolis-1, Devnar Pada Rasta, Devnar, Mumbai-4.

2. Prakash Chand S/o Shri Devanand Vasandani, Owner Of Ajnam Prakashchand Devanand, Near Kalptaru Market, Opp. Hemlani Market, Pali Bazar, Beawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. J.K.Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal Beawar District Ajmer by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001') has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a rent eviction application under Section 9 read with Section 15 of the Act of 2001 has been submitted by the respondent No. 1 against the Firm Ajnam-Prakash Chand S/o Shri Devanand Vasandani where the owner of the said firm is Prakashchand Devanand. The summons of the aforesaid application were served upon the [2025:RJ-JP:30181] (2 of 6) [CW-11057/2025] petitioner while the petitioner is Prakash Chand Vasandani S/o Shri Kishanchand Vasandani. Hence, an application with the corrected father’s name of the petitioner has been submitted and an ex-parte order was passed on 11.03.2025. Counsel submits that an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the petitioner for impleading him as party in the rent eviction application and allow him to put his defence. Counsel submits that these facts were not appreciated by the Tribunal and the application has been rejected vide impugned order dated

09.07.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner has an apprehension that he would be ejected from the rental premises as the rent premises is the same for which the eviction application has been submitted by the respondent No.1, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that with a mala fide intention, the application has been submitted by the petitioner to delay and linger on the eviction application submitted by the respondent No. 1 before the Rent Tribunal. Counsel submits that the shop was rented out to the firm Ajnam Prakashchand Devanand and the petitioner- Prakash Chand Vasandani S/o Krishanchand is the proprietor of the aforesaid firm, hence inspite of receipt of summons to the application, he did not choose to appear before the Tribunal, hence ex-parte proceedings were initiated on 11.03.2025. Thereafter an application was submitted by the petitioner granting him an opportunity to participate in the proceedings pending before the [2025:RJ-JP:30181] (3 of 6) [CW-11057/2025] Tribunal. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated

02.06.2025 but without challenging the said order, again one more application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 21 which has also been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated

09.07.2025. Counsel submits that by way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has neither assailed the ex-parte order dated 11.03.2025 nor the subsequent order dated 02.06.2025. Hence this petition is barred by constructive res judicata and is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this court in the cases of Munni Bai Vs. Vishram Meena, reported in 2023(3) DNJ 1169 and in the case of Munni Devi (Smt.) and Ramsahai, reported in 2023(2) DNJ (Raj.)

730. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, this petition is liable to be dismissed with a heavy cost.

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

5. A Perusal of the record indicates that the shop in question i.e. rental premises has been let out to a firm M/s Ajnam Prakash Chand Devanand through its proprietor Prakash Chand Vasandani. It appears that the respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 9 read with Section 15 of the Act of 2001 against the firm for its eviction on certain grounds for which notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner remained ex-parte and did not appear before the Tribunal, hence ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him on the said date and the matter was posted [2025:RJ-JP:30181] (4 of 6) [CW-11057/2025] before the Tribunal on 11.03.2025 and on the said date the petitioner appeared but disputed about his identity on the ground that he is Prakash Chand VansandaniS/o Kishanchand while the eviction application has been submitted against Prakash Chand S/o Devanand Vasandani. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him. It appears that subsequently an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the petitioner for allowing him to participate in the said proceedings but the said application was rejected on 02.06.2025 and again one more application was submitted in this regard and the same was rejected by passing the impugned order dated 09.07.2025. The documents annexed with the writ petition and the rent receipt dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure-7) indicates that the premises in question was let out to the firm Prakash Chand Devanand through its proprietor Prakash Chand Vasandani. It appears that there was a clerical/typographical error on the part of the respondent No. 1 while submitting the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 wherein parental name of the petitioner was disclosed as Devanand instead of Kishanchand. The petitioner very cleverly wanted to take the benefit of that situation and he pretended as if he is not the same person against whom the rent eviction application has been submitted by the respondent that is why two different applications have been submitted to linger on the proceedings and to cause the delay in disposal of the application submitted by the respondent No.1. This conduct of the petitioner is not appreciable and is liable to be deprecated but this Court can not lose its sight that ex-parte proceedings were initiated against [2025:RJ-JP:30181] (5 of 6) [CW-11057/2025] the petitioner, hence, the petitioner would be deprived to put his defence unless opportunity is granted to him. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to grant opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply and lead his evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of three weeks from today and apart from the above, he is directed to plant 51 shaded trees in public area near his vicinity. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of three weeks from today. He is further directed to look after these trees till disposal of the rent eviction application. The petitioner would submit the photograph of the plants before the Tribunal. The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 51 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. If the aforesaid exercise is done by the petitioner, the Trial Court would grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply and lead his evidence. It is made clear that the petitioner would not take this objection at any stage of the trial court that eviction application has not been submitted against him but submitted against some other persons because the rental premises has been let out to firm -Prakash Chand Devanand and the eviction application against the said firm only. [2025:RJ-JP:30181] (6 of 6) [CW-11057/2025]

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavor to decide the rent eviction application expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- within the stipulated time.

7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of Ashu/177 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J