- (1.) After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the named appellant in this intra-Court appeal against the order dt. 22.02.2013 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 12499/2012, we have not an iota of doubt that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the baseless writ petition by the order impugned. This apart, we have reservations even over the attempt to prosecute this appeal with the following particulars as regards the appellant: Sanjay Kumar Singh (since deceased) Through his adopted son, Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Omveer Singh (natural father) Since minor, he is being represented Through his natural father Omveer Singh S/o Shri Makhan Singh aged 50 years, resident of 75, Sai Niwas Navghat Marg, Udaipur. The matter arises out of the proceedings in execution of a certificate for recovery of possession issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 in relation to the premises situated at the aforesaid address 75, Sai Niwas Navghat, Udaipur. The relevant background aspects had been that the premises in question were allegedly let out by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 4 for a period of about four months i.e., from 07.02.2007 to 31.05.2007 on a monthly rent of Rs. 730/-; and the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 submitted a joint petition under Sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for permission to enter into limited period tenancy and for grant of certificate for recovery of possession upon expiry of the term of tenancy. The Rent Tribunal, Udaipur granted the prayer and issued the desired certificate by its order dt. 22.03.2007.
(2.) When the respondent No. 3 levied execution of the said certificate for recovery of possession, objections were put against such execution by the named petitioner-appellant Sanjay Kumar Singh by way of an application, purportedly under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, while alleging that the certificate had been obtained by manipulation and in order to secure his ouster from the premises. The other relevant aspects had been that the named appellant Sanjay Kumar Singh (since deceased) and the respondent No. 3 Smt. Gayatri Singh were married to each other but ultimately, the marriage got dissolved by a decree of divorce. The petitioner-appellant claimed himself to be the true owner of the property in question with the suggestion that the sale deed of the property was executed in favour of the respondent No. 3 out of love and affection existing at the relevant point of time. The objections have been put to contest by the respondent No. 3.
(3.) Pending disposal of the objections, the petitioner-appellant sought interim relief against dispossession: The prayer for interim relief was declined by the Rent Tribunal by its order dt. 08.10.2012. This order of the Rent Tribunal was sought to be questioned in the writ petition (CWP No. 12499/2012) leading to this appeal.;