[2025:RJ-JP:22830] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7150/2025 M/s. Praveen Handicraft, Through Proprietor Shri Shishupal Maheshwari Son Of Shri Ganeshdas, Resident Of House No. 88, Bhatton Ka Rasta, Opposite Purani Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Rekha Sharma Wife Of Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, Resident Of House No.88, Bhatton Ka Rasta, Opposite Purani Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 as well as the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I by which opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the respondent has been quashed and set aisde. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner for eviction of the rented premises. Counsel submits that on the fateful day, when the case was posted for cross-examination of the respondent, his counsel could not appear in the Court as his grandmother expired and the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner was closed. Counsel submits that cross-examination is a statutory right of the [2025:RJ-JP:22830] (2 of 4) [CW-7150/2025] petitioner until and unless an opportunity in this regard is provided to the petitioner, he would not be in a position to agitate his defence before the Tribunal, hence, under these circumstances, last and final opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of some cost to the other side. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on 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 2019 and the case was posted for recording the evidence of the respondents on 13.04.2024 and thereafter, several dates and opportunities were availed by the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent for one reason or another and in the meantime, more than two years have passed. It is true that the petitioner has justified reason for not cross-examining the respondent witness on the fateful day, i.e, on 20.02.2024 as the grandmother of counsel for the petitioner expired, but no justification has been provided for the earlier dates which were being taken by the petitioner from past more than two years. 5. It appears that the sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the rent eviction application pending against the petitioner, but this Court cannot lose its sight on the fact that the cross-examination is statutory right of a person and in presence thereof, such person would not be able to produce his/ her evidence in a proper way. 6. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, dual cost is imposed upon the petitioner which are as follows:- [2025:RJ-JP:22830] (3 of 4) [CW-7150/2025] (I) The petitioner would plant 21 saplings in 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 trial Court. (II) In addition, the petitioner is further directed to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent before the next date. 7. The reasons for passing this present order asking the petitioner to plant 21 plants is 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, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the trial Court would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 9. In case, the petitioner complies with the order passed by this Court within the above stipulated time, last and final opportunity be granted to him to cross-examine the respondent on the next date. If the cross-examination of the petitioner is not completed on the next date, then a short date be fixed for the said purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:22830] (4 of 4) [CW-7150/2025] 9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 10. This ex-parte order has been passed by this Court without issuing any notice to the respondent in order to avoid further delay as the matter related to the eviction of the petitioner and the application filed by the respondent is pending before the Rent Tribunal since last more than six years, even if the respondents feel aggrieved by this ex-parte order, he would be at liberty to move application for recalling of order and revival of this writ petition. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /412