[2025:RJ-JP:18051] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5612/2025 Awadhesh Mishra S/o Shri Suresh Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 15, Ram Bhawan, Jawali Colony, Station Road, Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Ashok Sancheti S/o Late Shri Mangal Chand Sancheti, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of New Sancheti House, Nagali Circle, Alwar, Tehsil Alwar, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pooja Badaya for Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar by which the evidence of the petitioner-tenant has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an eviction application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar in the year 2021 and when the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner, due to sickness, loose motions, vomiting and stomachache, he could not appear on the fateful day, but without taking into account this material aspect of the matter, his evidence was closed on 20.03.2025. Learned counsel submits that evidence of the petitioner is essential for adjudication of the matter on its merits and in absence of his evidence, his rights would be prejudiced, therefore, last [2025:RJ-JP:18051] (2 of 4) [CW-5612/2025] opportunity be granted to the petitioner to produce his evidence on appropriate amount of compensating cost to the respondent. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the eviction application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner in the year 2021. The order sheets of the Tribunal indicate that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading the evidence, but he failed to produce the same, hence on 15.03.2025, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner at the cost of Rs.2000/-, but inspite of above the petitioner failed to examine himself on the next date posted before the Tribunal. It is stated by the petitioner before the Tribunal that on account of his ill health, he could not appear before the Tribunal on the day when the matter was posted for recording his evidence. The reason for not recording the evidence on the fateful day on account of his ill health can be treated as justified but the earlier order sheet indicates that again and again time was sought for one reason or another, for recording the evidence that is why the cost of Rs.2000/- was imposed on the petitioner. 5. It appears that the petitioner wants to delay the disposal of the eviction application submitted by the respondent against him but this Court cannot lost its sight on the fact that the stand of the petitioner is also required to taken on record by way of recording his evidence. Therefore, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner for recording his evidence on the next date fixed before the Tribunal by imposing double cost upon the petitioner; one in [2025:RJ-JP:18051] (3 of 4) [CW-5612/2025] monetary terms; and second by directing him to plant 11 saplings which would grow into shaded trees in the nearest public area in his vicinity. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 stands quashed and set-aside with the following conditions:- (I) The petitioner would plant 11 saplings in public area near his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from today. He is further directed to look after these trees till disposal of the rent eviction application. The petitioner would submit the photograph of the plants before the Tribunal. (II) The petitioner is further directed to file compliance/status report of the planted trees on quarterly basis, i.e., June, September, December and March. In addition, the petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. 7. The reasons for passing this present order asking the petitioner to plant 11 plants 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. 8. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the above directions issued by this Court within a period of 15 days from today, the order dated 20.03.2025 would come into picture automatically. In case, compliance of this order is made by the [2025:RJ-JP:18051] (4 of 4) [CW-5612/2025] petitioner within the above stipulated time, last opportunity be granted to him to adduce his evidence on the next date. If the evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded on the next date, then a short date be fixed but thereafter no further opportunity would be granted for adducing the evidence to him. 9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/17