JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1901/2023: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by calling the record of the case this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (a) The impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-10) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Jaisalmer in Original Application No.1/2023 (12/2014) titled as M/s. Rajeev Arts V/s. M/s. Rajeev Arts Address-Near Fort Jain Temple & Ors. may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (b) That application filed by petitioner trust-non-applicant no.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 & Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with 151 CPC and Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act may kindly be allowed and grant permission to the petitioner trust for amendment in reply accordingly to application and also annexed documents may kindly be taken on record and also permitted to the petitioner trust for tendering and exhibiting these documents in evidence. (c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble High Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (d) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3005/2023: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by calling the record of the case this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (a) The impugned order dated 28.05.2022 (Annexure-7) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Jaisalmer in Original Application No.1/2023 (12/2014) titled as M/s. Rajeev Arts V/s. Shri Jaisalmer Lodravpur Parshwanath Jain Swetambar Trust & Ors. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and reply alongwith documents filed by the petitioner may kindly be taken on record. (b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (c) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. (b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (c) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. As per the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3005/2023, the respondent no.2-Shri Jaisalmer Lodravpur Parshwanath Jain Swetambar Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trust’) let out a property, situated at Fort, Jaisalmer, on rent to the petitioner-Shri Padam Chand Ranka, vide the rent deed that was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The petitioner further sublet the property to the respondent no.1-M/s. Rajeev Arts; whereafter, the respondent-Trust filed an eviction petition in the year 2011 against the petitioner, whereupon the learned Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.10.2011 allowed the said eviction petition. Thereafter, the respondent-M/s. Rajeev Arts filed an application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before learned Rent Tribunal, Jaisalmer against the judgment dated 03.10.2011, and the respondent-Trust filed a reply to the said application. 2.1. The petitioner-Shri Padam Chand Ranka filed an application for taking on record the reply filed by the petitioner to the aforementioned application and also filed an application for condonation of delay before the learned Rent Tribunal; the respondent-M/s. Rajeev Arts filed a reply to the said application of the petitioner. The learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2022 rejected the said application of the petitioner. 2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Padam Chand Ranka submitted that the petitioner filed the application seeking condonation of delay, wherein the learned Rent Tribunal, before passing the impugned order, ought to have given an opportunity of hearing. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal against the said petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that still the rebuttal evidence of the respondent-M/s Rajeev Arts is pending and the matter was posted for evidence of the respondent, and therefore, the reply and documents filed by the petitioner ought to have been taken on record for proper adjudication of the matter before the learned Tribunal. 2.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner-Padam Kumar Ranka has not been residing in Jaisalmer for last 8-9 years, and the said reason was sufficient, for condonation of delay. 2.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner-Padam Kumar Ranka has not been residing in Jaisalmer for last 8-9 years, and the said reason was sufficient, for condonation of delay. 2.5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, was given almost eight months’ time to file the reply in question, but the petitioner, despite of such sufficient opportunity, failed to file reply in time; rather the same was deliberately done by the petitioner, just to delay the adjudication in the application of the respondent-M/s. Rajeev Arts. 3. However, apart from the afore-projected common factual matrix, the marginal variation in the pleaded facts of the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1901/2023 would reveal that the petitioner-Trust filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 & Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal for production of the receipt book and also entry of Khata bahi. The learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 rejected the application of the petitioner-Trust. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust submitted that the aforesaid applications along with documents were not in the knowledge of the petitioner-trust because the record was very old and therefore, the rejection of the said application vide the impugned order is not justified in law. 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the receipt of deposited rent in regard to the dispute property and entry of the said receipt was made in Khata Bahi, which was a necessary document for proper adjudication of the matter before the learned Rent Tribunal. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that it is a settled position of law that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be rejected on the ground of delay; even in the present case, there was no question of delay and the said application was maintainable, if the person was unaware of a relevant fact pertaining to a case, at the time of filing thereof. 3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. Vs Amrik Singh & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15272 of 2008, decided on 13.02.2013), passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (b) Pankaja & Anr. 3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. Vs Amrik Singh & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15272 of 2008, decided on 13.02.2013), passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (b) Pankaja & Anr. Vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 415 ; (c) Panna Lal Sharma Vs Pana Devi Sharma & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 12118 of 2019, decided on 22.08.2019) passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court; (d) Kailashpati Devi & Anr Vs Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal & Ors. (C.M.W.P.NO. 10245/2006, decided on 26.04.2012) passed by the High Court of Allahabad. 3.5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-Trust, submitted that the application by the petitioner-Trust was filed after an inordinate delay, and thus, was not maintainable, at the present stage of the case before the learned Tribunal. 3.6. It was further submitted that there is collusion between petitioner-Trust and the respondent-Padam Chand Ranka and the learned Court below vide the impugned order 28.05.2022 rejected the application for taking on record the reply by the respondent-Padam Chand Ranka; now the petitioner-Trust filed the aforesaid application with same identical facts and documents, and thus, the same is also not maintainable. 3.7. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Bishwanath Poddar Vs Archana Poddar & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6712/2001, decided on 25.09.2001) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (b) State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Modern Tent House & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3845/2008, decided on 16.08.2017) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court; (c) Sangeeta Vs Kriti Devi Banjara & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P No. 5865/2019, decided on 10.05.2019) passed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 5. As regards S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3005/2023, this Court observes that the respondent-M/s Rajeev Arts filed an application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, whereafter, the petitioner-Padam Chand Ranka filed application for taking on record the reply filed by him, along with an application for condonation of delay; the learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order 28.05.2022 rejected the said application of the petitioner. 5.1. 5.1. This Court further observes that the petitioner’s Counsel filed his vakaltnama on 05.07.2013, and since thereafter, the reply was not filed by the petitioner, the learned Rent Tribunal closed the opportunity to file the reply on 30.08.2013. After closing such opportunity, the Counsel for the petitioner continuously appeared before the learned Rent Tribunal. 5.2. This Court also observes that the petitioner filed an application to take on record his reply on 29.11.2021 after almost a delay of eight years. This Court further observes that the case was filed in the year 2013 and despite giving several opportunities for filing the reply, the same was not filed. 5.3. This Court also observes that it is necessary to file the reply within the prescribed period, as stipulated under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001; in the present case, the petitioner did not file reply for almost eight years, and now if the petitioner is allowed to do so, then it would amount to non-fulfillment of the condition and requirement as stipulated in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which would not be appropriate. This Court further observes that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing the reply. 6. As regards, Writ Petition No. 1901/2023, this Court observes that petitioner-Trust filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 & Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal for production of the receipt book and also entry of Khata bahi, as well as seeking amendment in the pleadings, while adding para nos.9-A and 12; the learned Rent Tribunal however, vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 rejected the said application. 6.1 This Court further observes that the petitioner-Trust wished to produce a photocopy of the rent receipt no.1184 dated 31.03.2003 on record and the same, alongwith others, was not taken on record, along with reply of the respondent-Padam Chand Ranka, by the learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2022. 6.2. 6.1 This Court further observes that the petitioner-Trust wished to produce a photocopy of the rent receipt no.1184 dated 31.03.2003 on record and the same, alongwith others, was not taken on record, along with reply of the respondent-Padam Chand Ranka, by the learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2022. 6.2. This Court also observes that earlier the same contention was raised and the same documents were produced by the respondent-Padam Chand Ranka, which were not taken on record, due to delay of several years, by the learned Rent Tribunal, and therefore, now if the said application is allowed, then it would certainly result in more complexity in the litigation pending before the learned Tribunal, which course is not permissible under the law, at this stage. 6.3. This Court further observes that the matter is pending before the learned Tribunal since 2013, and now the amendment in the pleadings, at this stage, cannot be permissible under the law. 7. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner-Trust also do not render any assistance to its case. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions. 9. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.