Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Rent Tribunal’s order dated 08-07-2025, refusing to take his evidence affidavit on record due to a slight delay, the Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Court held that Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘2001 Act’) is directory and not mandatory. The Court directed the Tribunal to take the affidavit on record, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 2,000, planting 11 shady plants, and looking after them till the disposal of the application.
Background
The respondent had submitted an application under Section 9 of the 2001 Act against the petitioner for his eviction from the premises. The petitioner submitted a reply to the application on 26-05-2025, after service of notice. The petitioner did not enclose the evidence affidavit with the reply. The affidavit in the form of evidence was submitted at a later stage on 08-07-2025. The Rent Tribunal passed an order dated 08-07-2025, allowing the respondent’s application and refusing to take the petitioner’s evidence affidavit on record, ordering it to be kept in Part-D of the file. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the rent Tribunal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the order passed by the Rent Tribunal have been passed on the basis of Section 15 of the 2001 Act by holding that the affidavit was not submitted/enclosed by the petitioner with reply and the same was rejected at some belated stage.
The Court noted that the issue regarding the mandatory compliance of Section 15 of the 2001 Act had come before the Division Bench of the Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal, 2009 SCC OnLine Raj 109, wherein the Court had observed that it is settled position of law that the law of procedure should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory inasmuch as, the object of providing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. If a strict adherence to the procedure prescribed results in inconvenience or injustice then, the provision providing for such procedure must be construed liberally to meet the ends of justice.
Section 15(3) of the 2001 Act which lays down that the tenant may submit his reply, affidavits and documents within a period not exceeding forty five days from the date of service of notice is in substance pari materia to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which has been held to be directory by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court the provisions of Section 15 (3) also deserve to be held directory in character and not mandatory.
In light of the afore-stated discussion, the Court held the order passed by the Tribunal as not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set-aside. Further, the Court directed-
-
The petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents.
-
The petitioner to implant 11 shady plants in his vicinity in a public area within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
-
The petitioner is to look after these plants until the disposal of the application before the Tribunal and submit photographs of the plants to the Tribunal at the end of every quarter to show compliance.
The Court noted that the reason for directing the planting of 11 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good, noting that trees offer numerous benefits to the community, including a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment for future generations. The Court clarified that the ex-parte order was passed to avoid delay, and if the respondents felt aggrieved, they would be at liberty to move an application for the revival and recalling of the writ petition.
[Girdhar Gopal v. Sanwarmal Sharma, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12907/2025, decided on 11-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sumit Rawat and Rohit Sharma, Advocates
