Rajpal Singh Choudhary Son Of Shri ... vs Smt. Manju Ghiya Wife Of Shri Anil ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 967 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 967 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Rajpal Singh Choudhary Son Of Shri ... vs Smt. Manju Ghiya Wife Of Shri Anil ... on 30 January, 2021

Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10304/2020

Rajpal Singh Choudhary Son Of                      Shri     Rudmal    Choudhary,
Resident Of Village Ghiraniya Bada, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District
Seekar Presently Residing At House No. 134, Ashok Vihar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Smt. Manju Ghiya Wife Of Shri Anil Kumar Ghiya, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of House No. C-484-B, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10312/2020

Rajpal Singh Choudhary Son Of Shri Rudmal Choudhary, Resident Of Village Ghiraniya Bada, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Seekar Presently Residing At House No. 134, Ashok Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Smt. Manju Ghiya Wife Of Shri Anil Kumar Ghiya, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of House No. C-484-B, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10331/2020

Rajpal Singh Choudhary Son Of Shri Rudmal Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Ghiraniya Bada, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Seekar Presently Residing At House No. 134, Ashok Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar Ghiya Son Of Shri Makhanlal Ghiya, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of House No. C- 484-B, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aatish Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.L.L.Gupta, Adv. assisted by Mr.Vikram Jonwal, Adv.

                                           (2 of 5)                    [CW-10304/2020]


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                      Order

30/01/2021

In these writ petitions, the petitioner-tenant has challenged

the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.1,

Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby he has been declined

opportunity to file reply to the eviction application, filed by the

respondent-landlord.

Learned counsel submitted that after service of notice on

23.12.2019, the lawyer filed his power/Vakalatnama on

31.01.2020 and the Court below fixed the next date on

25.02.2020, on which date, time was sought to file reply and as

such the matter was posted on 03.03.2020.

Learned counsel submitted that on 03.03.2020, an

application was filed along-with certificate of illness of the

petitioner, seeking extension of time for filing reply.

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has rejected

the request of the petitioner to file reply on the ground that the

statutory period of 45 days has already expired and as such the

petitioner was not permitted to file reply and the matter has been

posted for final arguments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court

in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal and Ors.

reported in AIR 2009 Raj. 87, has already considered the

provision of Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001

and the said provision has been held to be directory and not

mandatory.

Learned counsel submitted that there was justification of not

filing reply within a period of 45 days as the petitioner was having

(3 of 5) [CW-10304/2020]

ailment. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has

wrongly rejected request of the petitioner to file reply of the

eviction application.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court

below has found that the petitioner did not have proper

explanation for not filing his reply within the time prescribed and

as such the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on

the judgment passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.7705/2011 (Mahendra Agarwal Vs. PO Rent Control

Tribunal & Ors.) decided on 22.11.2011, wherein this Court after

considering the ratio laid down in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs.

Chandu Lal and Ors. (supra) has further held that reasonable

cause has to be shown by filing application seeking condonation.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was

no reasonable cause and as such the Court below has rightly come

to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to file reply to

the eviction application.

Learned counsel further submitted that the eviction

application has been filed by the respondent-landlord on the

ground of default of payment of rent and further on the ground of

personal necessity.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not paid

any rent, as per the conditions of lease deed and several cheques,

which were given by him, have also not been honoured and as

such the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, have also been initiated against the petitioner.

                                         (4 of 5)                   [CW-10304/2020]



     Learned    counsel     submitted          that     the     petitioner   is   in

possession of the Shop and even during pendency of the

application, he is not paying the rent, which was agreed between

the parties and as such no leniency may be shown by this Court.

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal and Ors. (supra)

has found that the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan

Rent Control Act, 2001 are directory and not mandatory.

This Court further finds that the Co-ordinate Bench in the

case of Mahendra Agarwal Vs. PO Rent Control Tribunal &

Ors. (supra) has further held that the reasonable cause has to be