Beawar (Rajasthan) v. Rajendra Mehta S/o Late

: Mr. K.N. Sharma Mr. Yash Pal Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/07/2025

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2025 as well as the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Beawer (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), the instant writ petition has been preferred.

2. By passing the order dated 21.05.2025, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed and no further opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to produce the witness, i.e., Hans Nath Yadav. Thereafter, an application was submitted for recalling of the aforesaid order and for grant of opportunity to lead evidence, however, the said application has been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.06.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:24875] (2 of 5) [CW-9887/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) is pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the respondent-landlord was completed on 14.01.2025 and, thereafter, the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that, though some time was sought in between January, 2025 and February, 2025 for recording the statement of PW-1-Suresh Mathur and his examination-in- chief was recorded on 07.02.2025 and finally the cross- examination was completed on 19.05.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner wanted to produce one witness Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, but he was suffering from last stage Cancer and finally, he passed away on 28.04.2025, hence, under the changed circumstances, an application was submitted for recording the statement of witness-Hans Nath Yadav. Learned counsel submits that on the fateful day, when the date was posted for recording his evidence, he was at Gorakhpur, hence, he could not appear on 21.05.2025 and his evidence was closed. Learned counsel submits that all these facts were narrated by the petitioner by way of filing an application seeking one last opportunity, but the said prayer of the petitioner was declined and the application was rejected by the impugned order dated

10.06.2025. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the aforesaid witness is material and important for just decision of the case, therefore, last opportunity be granted to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and [2025:RJ-JP:24875] (3 of 5) [CW-9887/2025] submits that the rent eviction application submitted by the respondent against the petitioner is lying pending for its adjudication since 2019. Learned counsel submits that when the matter was not proceeded before the Tribunal, the petition was preferred before this Court for expeditious disposal of the same and it was allowed and a direction was issued to the Tribunal to decide the pending Rent Eviction Application within a period of one month. Learned counsel submits that inspite of passing of the time, as stipulated by this Court, the eviction proceedings could not be finalised on account of the reason that the petitioner was delaying the disposal of the same. Learned counsel submits that after death of the second witness, i.e., Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, an application was submitted by the petitioner for producing another witness, i.e., Hans Nath Yadav. Learned counsel submits that inspite of availing the said opportunity, no affidavit was submitted and his sole object was to delay the disposal of the rent eviction application, hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the order dated 21.05.2025 and the subsequent order dated 10.06.2025, therefore, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the rent eviction application, submitted by the respondent against the petitioner, is pending before the Tribunal for last more than six years. This fact is not in dispute that evidence of the respondent was completed on 14.01.2025 and, thereafter, several dates were posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner. This fact is also not in [2025:RJ-JP:24875] (4 of 5) [CW-9887/2025] dispute that when permission was granted to the petitioner for recording the evidence of witness, i.e., Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, he died and his evidence could not be recorded, hence, the prayer of the petitioner for recording the evidence of another witness, i.e., Mr. Hans Nath Yadav was entertained and the case was posted for the next date and on the next date, another witness did not appear before the Tribunal, hence, the order impugned dated

21.05.2025 has been passed.

7. This fact is not in dispute that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner to produce the said witness in the witness box, but in compliance of the principle of natural justice, this Court deems it just and proper that at least one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to submit his evidence before the Tribunal in a proper way subject to following conditions:- (I) The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent on or before the next date to appear before the Tribunal. (II) The petitioner would plant 11 shady trees in the public area in close vicinity to him and will further take care of those trees and submit the report in this regard before the Tribunal.

8. The reason for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 11 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. [2025:RJ-JP:24875] (5 of 5) [CW-9887/2025]

9. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the present order passed by this Court, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

10. It has been apprised at the Bar that next date before the Tribunal is tomorrow, i.e., 08.07.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the witness-Hans Nath Yadav, who resides at Gorakhpur, it could not be possible for him to travel and appear before the Tribunal tomorrow, therefore, some reasonable time be granted. In these facts and circumstances, the Tribunal is directed to post the matter after one week and make all possible endeavours to record the evidence on the said date. If the evidence is not recorded on the next date, for whatever reasons, then a short date may be fixed, but in any case no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner, in case, he fails to produce his evidence on the next date.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.

12. It is expected from the Tribunal to make all possible endeavors to decide the pending eviction application expeditiously as early as possible. Karan/47 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J