Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Viman Hospitility And Entertainment ... vs Yatin Parihar (2025:Rj-Jd:21876) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:21876]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11288/2024
Viman Hospitility And Entertainment Private Limited, Through Its
Director Vikas Lohiya Son Of Shri Poonamchand Lohiya, Aged 48
Years, Resident Of A-202, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) And
Address 17, Kalpataru Shopping Center Scheme, Sector E,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Satyen Parihar S/o Late Shri Dharmveer Parihar, Karta
Dharmveer Satyen Parihar (Huf), Resident Of 157-B, Polo
Second, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11245/2024
Viman Hospitility And Entertainment Private Limited, Through Its
Director Vikas Lohiya Son Of Shri Poonamchand Lohiya, Aged 48
Years, Resident Of A-202, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) And
Address 18, Kalpataru Shopping Center Scheme, Sector E,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Yatin Parihar S/o Shri Satyen Parihar, Karta Yatin Parihar (Huf),
Resident Of 157-B, Polo Second, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/05/2025
1. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned
Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned
[2025:RJ-JD:21876] (2 of 3) [CW-11288/2024]
Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected petitioner's
application(s) seeking liberty to cross-examine the respondent -
landlord which was filed under section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent
Control Act, 2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned
Tribunal has erred in refusing petitioner's application for grant of
right to cross-examine the respondent - landlord as the same is a
right flowing from the principles of natural justice.
3. In support of his contention aforesaid, he relied upon
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Aasandas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) CDR
1277.
4. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondent - landlord
could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the submissions made by both the parties, these writ
petitions are allowed.
7. The orders dated 15.03.2024 impugned in both the writ
petitions are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. The trial Court is directed to give the petitioner a liberty to
cross-examine the respondents, who shall keep himself available
before the trial Court for cross-examination on the next date of
hearing. The respondents shall also be free to cross-examine the
petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:21876] (3 of 3) [CW-11288/2024]
9. Further, the trial Court shall ensure that no unnecessary
adjournments are given to the petitioner.
10. The stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
457- and 458-kansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
