Ki Mori, Jaipur v. Shri Khandelwal Vaishya Hithkarini Sabha, Registration No

: Mr. Ajay Raj Tantia Mr. Hemant Gupta Mr. Rohit Tantia JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/09/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for granting one more opportunity to lead his evidence has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) has been submitted against the petitioner by the respondent for his eviction in the year 2012 wherein issues were framed in the year 2013 and the case remained pending for recording the evidence of the respondent uptil 20.03.2021. Thereafter, the Courts could not properly [2025:RJ-JP:35435] (2 of 5) [CW-13439/2025] function due to spread of COVID-19 pandemic. Learned counsel submits that an application was submitted by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner in the year 2022, which remained pending for a considerable time of three years as the respondent did not submit any reply to the same and the reply to the aforesaid application was only submitted in the year 2025. Thereafter, the said application was rejected, however, one opportunity was granted to the petitioner but on the fateful day the petitioner could not appear on account of his ailment as he is an old person of 78 years of age, therefore, his evidence was closed on 16.07.2025. Subsequently, an application was submitted on 11.08.2025 for granting one further opportunity for the same but the said application was rejected with a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Learned counsel submits that important question of law and facts are involved in the matter, hence, last opportunity be granted to the petitioner by imposing adequate cost.

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

4. Perusal of the record indicates that the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner more than 13 years back for his eviction from the rented premises. This fact is not in dispute that the matter remained pending for recording the evidence of the respondent till 20.03.2021 and thereafter the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner but in the meantime he submitted an application for appointment of Commissioner and the said application remained pending before the Tribunal for a considerable time and subsequently came to be rejected on [2025:RJ-JP:35435] (3 of 5) [CW-13439/2025]

27.05.2025. Thereafter, the case was again posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner on 16.07.2025, but on that date he could not appear, hence, his evidence was closed.

5. On a subsequent date, an application was submitted for granting one further opportunity wherein it was indicated that on account of ailment, the petitioner could not appear on 16.07.2025 but the said application was also rejected.

6. This fact is not in dispute that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioner in between the years 2021 - 2025, but instead of leading his evidence, an application was filed by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner which could not be decided for the reasons best known to the Tribunal. But, in any case, the petitioner has got four years in between to lead his evidence but he remained negligent. However, looking to the fact that important questions of law and facts are involved, this Court deems it just and proper that evidence of the petitioner is required to be taken for appropriate adjudication of the application, pending against him, before the Tribunal.

7. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with the following terms and conditions:- (I) The petitioner would pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent before the next date. (II) The petitioner would implant 11 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 he is further directed to look after these plants till final disposal of the rent eviction application. [2025:RJ-JP:35435] (4 of 5) [CW-13439/2025] (III) The petitioner 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.

8. The reasons for passing this 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 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.

9. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid terms and conditions, one and last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence and on account of paucity of time, in case it would not be possible for the Tribunal to record the evidence of the petitioner on the next date, then a short date may be fixed for the same.

10. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to adduce his evidence on the next date for any good reason, no further opportunity would be granted to him for the said purpose and the Tribunal would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.

12. It is further made clear that this ex-parte order has been passed by this Court, without issuing notice to the respondent, taking note of the fact that summoning of the respondent for [2025:RJ-JP:35435] (5 of 5) [CW-13439/2025] disposal of the instant writ petition would further cause delay. Looking to the fact that eviction application filed by the respondent is pending against the petitioner for last more than 13 years, this Court deems it just and proper to issue direction to the Tribunal to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13. The respondent would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order, in case he feels aggrieved. Karan/4 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J