Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah and Anr. reported in AIR

Judgment

1. Rohit Modi S/o Sh. Gopal Modi, R/o A-117, Janta Colony, Jaipur (Raj).

2. Chanda D/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Ji, R/o Gote Walo Ki Bagichi, Transport Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. L.L. Gupta For Respondent(s) Mr. Tanmay Mathur Mr. Lakshay K Sharma : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Madhav Dadhich Mr. Ramji Lal Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metro-I (for short “Tribunal”) by which the application [2025:RJ-JP:33830] (2 of 6) [CW-7939/2025] submitted by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 18.08.2023 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondents against the father of the petitioners before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that father of the petitioners died in the year 2022 and an intimation in this regard was given to the Tribunal on 06.05.2022 and thereafter an application was submitted by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC before the Tribunal on 29.06.2022 and in the meantime, the petitioners appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel on 03.08.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since application submitted by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was not decided and the petitioners were not substituted in the array of cause-title in place of their father, therefore, they did not appear before the Tribunal and on 26.05.2023, the proceedings have been initiated against them ex parte. Learned counsel submits that an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was submitted by the petitioners, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 01.04.2025, but on the same day the application submitted by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was allowed and the petitioners were substituted on the record by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that owing to ex parte proceedings against the petitioners, they are not in a position to participate in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that in the meantime, no progress has taken place and the petitioners are asking for relegation of the [2025:RJ-JP:33830] (3 of 6) [CW-7939/2025] proceedings and they are ready to participate in the future proceedings.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal Kotah and Anr. reported in AIR 1955 SC 425; (2) Rakesh Ranjan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1996 AIHC 627; (3) M/s. Gavicci & Anr. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in 1986 (1) CCC 559; and (4) Raghuvar Vs. Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. reported in 1998(3) WLC (Raj.) 204.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the instant writ petition is highly misconceived and the sole object of the petitioners is to delay the disposal of the application filed under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and the same is lying pending for its adjudication since 2017. Learned counsel submits that once the petitioners have put appearance through their counsel before the Tribunal in the month of August, 2022, there was no reason or occasion available with the petitioners to remain absent on the subsequent dates. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable in the proceedings conducted in the provisions of Act of 2001. Learned counsel submits that proceedings under the Act of 2001 are summary proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the whole and sole object of the petitioners was to delay the proceedings that is why they failed to [2025:RJ-JP:33830] (4 of 6) [CW-7939/2025] appear before the Tribunal inspite of submitting power through their counsel. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondents against the father of the petitioners before the Rent Tribunal in the year 2017. It appears that father of the petitioners expired in the year 2022 and an intimation in this regard was given by his counsel to the Tribunal on 06.05.2022 and based on the said intimation on the subsequent date, i.e., 29.06.2022 an application was submitted by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. On the next date, i.e., 03.08.2022, the petitioners have appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel by filing power meaning thereby the petitioners were well aware that they are the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Thereafter, the petitioners disappeared on the subsequent dates, hence, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them on 26.05.2023. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was submitted for setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.05.2023, the said application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected vide impugned order dated 01.04.2025, but on the very same day, the pending application submitted by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was allowed and the petitioners have been substituted on the record in place of the deceased tenant against [2025:RJ-JP:33830] (5 of 6) [CW-7939/2025] whom proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 have been initiated.

8. The Tribunal could have decided the application submitted by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC then and there in the year 2022 itself, but instead of doing so, the application was kept pending for a considerable time and the same has been decided vide impugned order dated 01.04.2025.

9. Taking the benefits of the aforesaid situation and inspite of making appearance before the Tribunal, a delay has been caused by the petitioners to the application filed under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, but in any case, the principles of natural justice requires that opportunity to participate in the proceedings and he proceedings are lying pending against them are required to be adjudicated after taking their defence into count.

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following terms and conditions which are as follows:- (I) The petitioner would pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents before the next date. (II) The petitioners would implant 21 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by them within a period of two weeks from today and they are further directed to look after these plants till final disposal of the rent eviction application. (III) The petitioners would 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. [2025:RJ-JP:33830] (6 of 6) [CW-7939/2025]

11. The reasons for passing this present order asking the petitioners to plant 21 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.

12. In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the aforesaid terms and conditions, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioners to participate in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal.

13. Looking to the fact that eviction petition is pending since 2017, it is expected from the Tribunal to make all possible endeavors to decide the said application expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of 15 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

14. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. Karan/207 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J