Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand granted relief to a tenant in an eviction case where the Rent Tribunal had refused to accept his affidavit of evidence filed over a month late, citing Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. Holding that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the affidavit to be taken on record. However, the relief was made subject to costs and an unusual condition requiring the petitioner to plant 11 shady trees, care for them until disposal, and submit quarterly photographic proof.

The case before the High Court of Rajasthan concerned a writ petition filed by Girdhar Gopal, a tenant, challenging an order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal. The Tribunal had refused to accept an affidavit of evidence submitted by the petitioner more than a month after filing his reply, directing instead that it be placed in Part-D of the file.

Also Read: ‘Child Abuse Survivors Must Not Be Re-Traumatized’ | Supreme Court Rejects POCSO Convict’s Plea to Recall Minor Victim for Cross-Examination | ₹10.5 Lakh Compensation Ordered

The proceedings originated when respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, seeking the petitioner’s eviction from the subject premises. The petitioner filed his reply on 26.05.2025 but did not enclose his affidavit. The affidavit was submitted only on 08.07.2025. The Tribunal, treating Section 15 of the Act of 2001 as mandatory, declined to accept the affidavit on record because it was not filed within forty-five days.

The petitioner argued that the slight delay should not prevent his evidence from being considered and contended that strict adherence to procedural timelines would cause prejudice. He urged that the affidavit be accepted in the interest of justice. The matter therefore came before the High Court to determine whether Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 should be treated as mandatory or directory.

The Court examined Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which provides: “The tenant may submit his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner, within a period not exceeding forty five days from the date of service of notice.”

It referred to earlier precedent and recorded: “Thus, 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 has to be construed liberally so as to meet the ends of justice.”

The Court further observed: “The provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001 is in substance pari materia to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC which has been held to be directory by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

Concluding on this issue, it stated: “Since the controversy involved in this petition was set at rest by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.”

The Court declared: “the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside subject to the following conditions:-”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court | Certificate Under Section 65-B Evidence Act Must Be Issued By Original Recording Device Holder | Electronic Evidence In Rent Control Proceedings Requires Proper Authentication

“The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents. The petitioner would implant 11 shady plants in his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.”

“He is further directed to look after these plants till disposal of the application before the Tribunal and submit the photographs of these plants before the Tribunal to show that the condition No.2 imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him at the end of every quarter.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumit Rawat, Mr. Rohit Sharma

Case Title: Girdhar Gopal v. Sanwarmal Sharma & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:36818
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12907/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand