Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 249 (RAJ)

Satynarayan v. Daulat Singh

2024-02-09

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- "(i) that impugned order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure- 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) that impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure- 8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) that the reply to eviction petition (Annexure-3) of the petitioner be taken on record." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord preferred an eviction petition against the petitioner. The learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur issued notices to the petitioner-tenant on 21.12.2021. The petitioner sought time to file reply to the eviction petition and on 11.02.2022, the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur closed the reply of the petitioner. On 17.10.2022, the petitioner filed his reply along with his application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-8) by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same has preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the learned Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioner on 21.12.2021 and the petitioner had sought time to file reply, however, on account of the illness suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner could not file the reply to the eviction petition within the stipulated time period as per the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the delay in filing the reply to the eviction petition filed by the respondent ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice particularly looking to the fact that the petitioner suffered from illness. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the order dated 14.01.2009 passed in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and Anr. reported in (2009) 0 AIR (Raj) 87 and submits that the provision as laid down under Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001 is directory in nature and not mandatory and thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the reply to the eviction petition. reported in (2009) 0 AIR (Raj) 87 and submits that the provision as laid down under Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001 is directory in nature and not mandatory and thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the reply to the eviction petition. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder :- "Thus, it is settled position of law that the law of procedure should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory inasmuch as, the object of providing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. If a strict adherence to the procedure prescribed results in inconvenience or injustice then, the provision providing for such procedure has to be construed liberally so as to meet the ends of justice. As noticed above, the provision contained in subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001 is in substance pari materia to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC which has been held to be directory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, in our considered opinion, for the parity of the reasons, the provisions of Section 15(3) also deserves to be held directory in character and not mandatory." 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the contention of the petitioner that on account of the suffering from illness, the petitioner could not file the reply well in time is absolutely false and frivolous as the petitioner has not placed any document on record before the learned Tribunal as well as before the appellate Court and this Court in order to show that the petitioner had actually suffered from some illness due to which the reply could not be filed by him well within time. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner was operating the shop in dispute during the said time and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was suffering from any illness. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the reply was closed on 11.02.2022 and the petitioner filed the written statement on 17.12.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner was operating the shop in dispute during the said time and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was suffering from any illness. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the reply was closed on 11.02.2022 and the petitioner filed the written statement on 17.12.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Desh Raj v. Balkishan [Civil Apeal No.433 of 2020 decided on 20.01.2020] and submits that the though the provision as laid down under Section 15(3) is directory in nature, however, the petitioner has failed to show before the Court the reason assigned by him for delay in filing the written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the respondent-landlord has concluded his final arguments on 24.07.2023 and the petitioner is repeatedly seeking time for making his final arguments. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is seen from the perusal of the documents on record that the petitioner has not placed any document whatsoever in order to establish before the Court that he was suffering from some illness on account of which, he could not file the written statement well within time. The petitioner was under obligation to demonstrate before the Court the hardship that was caused to him on account of which he did not file a written statement but in the present case, no such document whatsoever has been placed on record to show the hardship. It is seen from the record that the notices were served upon the petitioner on 30.10.2021 and the period of 45 days as laid down under Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001 came to an end on 16.12.2021. The matter was again listed on 21.12.2021 where the service was deemed to be complete, the petitioner did not file the reply within the prescribed time period and thus, on 11.02.2022, the learned Tribunal closed the written statement of the petitioner. The petitioner after the delay of about more than seven months filed written statement on 17.10.2022. The matter was again listed on 21.12.2021 where the service was deemed to be complete, the petitioner did not file the reply within the prescribed time period and thus, on 11.02.2022, the learned Tribunal closed the written statement of the petitioner. The petitioner after the delay of about more than seven months filed written statement on 17.10.2022. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2023 and thereafter the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 21.12.2023 after the delay of more than two months for which, no reason has been assigned. Thus, the provisions of Section 15(3) of Act of 2001 are directory in nature, however, the petitioner was required to show the hardship that was caused to him for the delay in filing the written statement and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the same before the Court for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the written statement. The petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.