Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Premchand Ratawa vs Shakuntala Devi (2024:Rj-Jd:18450) on 29 April, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:18450]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6906/2024
Premchand Ratawa S/o Champalal Ratawa, Aged About 61 Years,
Outside Naya Darwaza Near Kakuwalo Kai Pol, Nagaur
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shakuntala Devi W/o Gordhanlal, Near Kakuwalo Kai Pol, Baluji
Ki Badi, Nagaur Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VD Gaur
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
29/04/2024
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming
following relief(s):-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
this petition for writ in the nature of certiorari may
kindly be allowed and by any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction,
(i) That impugned order dated 03.12.2020
(Annex.4), may kindly be set aside.
(ii) That the learned court below may kindly be
directed to take the reply filed by the
petitioner/defendant on record.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed
an eviction petition alleging therein that the respondent/plaintiff
purchased a property from the petitioner/defendant vide sale deed
dated 01.07.2011 and obtained vacant possession of the same.
Thereafter, the suit property was given on rent by the respondent/
plaintiff to the petitioner in the year 2012 on monthly rent of
[2024:RJ-JD:18450] (2 of 4) [CW-6906/2024]
Rs.5000/- per month and the petitioner has been staying in the
suit property as a tenant ever since.
3. The petitioner/defendant paid rent till the month of February,
2013, however, the petitioner/defendant stopped paying rent from
the month of March, 2013 and also he did not pay electricity bills
for which, the electricity department disconnected the electricity
connection of the suit property.
4. On 01.04.2019, the respondent/plaintiff again asked for the
due rent, however, the petitioner refused to pay the same and the
petitioner/defendant did not pay the rent since March, 2013 to
June 2019. The respondent/plaintiff sent a legal notice through
the counsel on 27.06.2019 along with the bank account details.
The respondent being an old aged person cannot stay with her son
since the house is small in size and moreover, she cannot stay at
the first floor of the said house as she cannot climb stairs due to
her old age, therefore, she required the suit property.
5. Learned Rent Tribunal, Nagaur, issued notices and the
petitioner/defendant filed a detailed reply to the same by denying
all the averments. Reply (Annexure-2) was filed on 12.03.2020
along with the application (Annexure-3) under Section 151 CPC
stating therein that reply was to be filed on 14.02.2020 but since
the petitioner is an old aged person and suffers from various
ailment and on account of ailment, reply could not be filed on
14.02.2020. It was also stated that delay in filing reply was
unintentional.
6. The learned Rent Tribunal, Nagaur, dismissed the application
of the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure-4) and
reply filed by the petitioner was also not taken on record and thus,
[2024:RJ-JD:18450] (3 of 4) [CW-6906/2024]
being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred the present
writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
petitioner is an old aged person suffering from ailment, therefore
reply was not filed well within time and the learned tribunal
dismissed the application. He also submits that in the present
case, the order to not take the reply on record, is not in the
interest of justice, as the petitioner is an old aged person and the
same ought to have been considered by the learned Rent Tribunal,
Nagaur. He further submits that as per the provision of Section 15
(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act of 2001'), reply has to be filed within a period of 45
days, however, the same cannot be construed strictly and the
same has to be treated directory in nature.
8. He also places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court
in DBSAW No.1133/2008 : Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal, while
submitting that none of these provisions restrict the power of the
court/tribunal to grant further time for filing the written
statement/reply and to take the same on record in the interest of
justice even after the expiry time limit prescribed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
10. The petitioner/defendant did not file the reply to the eviction
petition well within time in light of provision of Section 15(3) of
the Act of 2001. The petitioner has assigned the reason of his
illness on account of which he could not file the reply to the
eviction petition. It is also seen that the impugned order dated
03.12.2020 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Nagaur has been
[2024:RJ-JD:18450] (4 of 4) [CW-6906/2024]
assailed by the petitioner after a delay of more than 3 years as
the present writ petition has been filed on 22.04.2024.
11. In the writ petition, no reason has been assigned by the
petitioner for filing the present writ petition after such delay of
more than 3 years, which shows that the petitioner is having no
seriousness towards the pending litigation and it seems that he is
not interested in contesting the matter.
12. As an upshot of the above discussion, no interference is
called for in the impugned order dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure-4),
passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Nagaur and therefore, the
instant writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition as well as all
pending application, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/52-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
