[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hitesh Soni vs Yogendra Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:11491) on 10 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11491]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1306/2026
Hitesh Soni S/o Shri Ishwar Soni, Aged About 50 Years, Resident
Of Jyoti Jewellers, Gold And Silver Plaza, New Ganpati Market,
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Laakh Singh, Owner Of Rang Rasiya
Restaurant, Opposite Gate No.3, Aiims Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Surana
Mr. Tarun Dudia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alkesh Kumar
Mr. Karan Singh Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
10/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
landlord challenging the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Rent
Petition No. 214/2025 (Yogendra Singh vs. Hitesh Soni), whereby
the tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo with
respect to the property in dispute.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, being the landlord, had rented out a portion of his
property to the respondent-tenant in the year 2022, and since
then the respondent has been in possession of the said portion of
the property as a tenant.
4. It is further submitted that the respondent-tenant filed a rent
petition before the Rent Tribunal seeking certain reliefs, primarily
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:47:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11491] (2 of 4) [CW-1306/2026]
praying that he should not be forcibly dispossessed from the
rented premises without following due process of law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to
the filing of the rent petition, notices were issued and the
petitioner filed his reply before the Tribunal. However, while
considering the matter at the interim stage, the Rent Tribunal
passed the impugned order directing both the parties to maintain
status quo with respect to the property in question.
6. It is contended that such a direction was beyond the scope of
the relief sought in the rent petition, inasmuch as the respondent
had merely prayed that he should not be dispossessed without
following due process of law, and no specific prayer for
maintaining status quo with respect to the entire property was
made.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
respondent has been in default in payment of rent in terms of the
arrangement between the parties and has not produced any
documentary evidence showing payment of rent.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. It is submitted that in the rent petition, the respondent
has clearly stated that he is in possession of the premises in
question.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that there is
no written rent agreement between the parties; however,
according to him, the respondent is in possession of the premises
on the basis of an oral tenancy agreement.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:47:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11491] (3 of 4) [CW-1306/2026]
10. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a reply before
the Rent Tribunal but failed to disclose before the Tribunal that an
FIR had also been lodged against the respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention
of this Court to the map/area which, according to the respondent,
is under his possession as a tenant. It is contended that in case,
there is any default in payment of rent, the petitioner has an
appropriate remedy available under law for recovery of the same.
12. It is further submitted that the quantum of rent as well as
the area of the rented premises are seriously disputed between
the parties, and therefore such issues are required to be
adjudicated by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence during trial.
13. Learned counsel submits that until such disputed questions
of fact are adjudicated by the Tribunal, the respondent is entitled
to protection against forcible dispossession and therefore, the
interim order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant
interference.
14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the
material available on record.
15. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that after issuance
of notice in the rent petition and after the petitioner had filed his
reply before the Tribunal, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an
interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo
with regard to the property in dispute.
16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid
direction was not entirely warranted. The rent petition essentially
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:47:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11491] (4 of 4) [CW-1306/2026]
pertains to a dispute arising out of a landlord-tenant relationship
and does not involve any question relating to title or ownership of
the property. Moreover, the relief sought in the rent petition was
limited to restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the
respondent without following due process of law. However, the
Tribunal, while passing the interim order, directed the parties to
maintain status quo with respect to the entire property, which was
beyond the scope of the specific relief prayed for.
17. Nevertheless, considering the nature of the dispute and the
fact that the respondent claims to be in possession of the
premises as a tenant, this Court is of the view that the order
passed by the Tribunal requires modification rather than,
interference in its entirety. Accordingly, it is directed that till the
final disposal of the rent petition, the petitioner shall not
dispossess the respondent from the disputed premises except in
accordance with due process of law.
18. It is further clarified that in case, any rent or other dues are
alleged to be outstanding, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail
appropriate remedies in accordance with law for recovery of the
same.
19. With the aforesaid observations and modification in the
impugned order dated 08.10.2025, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
20. Stay petition as well as all pending application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
29-AbhishekS/-
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:47:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
