[2025:RJ-JP:23843] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8508/2025 Rajendera Prashad Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Prashad Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House No. 48, Pratap Nagar, Purana Ramgarh Road, Amer Road, Jaipur Second Address- Raj Homoeo Clinic House No. 14, New House No. 56, Mangodi Wali Bagichi Ke Peeche, Narayan Colony, Bharmpuri, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Nawal Kishor Saini S/o Shri Phoolchand Saini, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 164 Govind Nagar West , Amer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Purshottam Das S/o Shri Kanhaiya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. 110, Shankar Nagar, Amer Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yunus Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aatish Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/06/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan- I (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the application submitted by the petitioner for granting one opportunity to lead the evidence has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the fateful day when the case was listed for recording the evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses there was a casualty in his family on account of the demise of a relative in Mumbai, so he could not attend the Court proceedings and failed to produce the evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:23843] (2 of 4) [CW-8508/2025] Counsel submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) has been submitted by the respondents for rent eviction against the petitioner. Counsel submits that unless the evidence in support of his defence is produced on record, the matter cannot be adjudicated in a proper way, therefore last opportunity be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost to the other side. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that rent eviction application was submitted by the respondents against the petitioner way back in the year 2018 and more than 21 opportunities were sought by the petitioner to lead the evidence but for one reason or another, the same was not adduced. Counsel submits that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of eviction application submitted by the respondents, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the rent eviction application submitted by the respondents against the petitioner is lying pending for its adjudication since 2018. This fact is not in dispute that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner but the petitioner has failed to avail all those opportunities and that is why his opportunity of producing the evidence was closed. But looking to the fact that defence of the petitioner is required to be taken on record, and unless and until the same is not taken on record, the petitioner would not be in a position to defend himself before the Rent Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:23843] (3 of 4) [CW-8508/2025] 6. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his prayer to the extent of recording the evidence of only two witnesses i.e. namely Pushpa Devi Bhardwaj and Mahendra Sharma. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has neglected to produce his defense evidence inspite of giving several opportunities, however, a last opportunity is granted to the petitioner on the following two conditions:- (I) The petitioner would plant 21 saplings/plants of the shaded trees 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) In addition, the petitioner is further directed to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent. 8. The reasons for passing the 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 is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries . Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. 9. In case, the petitioner complies with the above conditions on or before the next date fixed in the eviction petition i.e. 08.07.2025, last and final opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence by way of producing two witnesses i.e. Pushpa Devi Bhardwaj and Mahendra Sharma before the [2025:RJ-JP:23843] (4 of 4) [CW-8508/2025] Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to record the evidence of the above two witnesses, after satisfying itself that compliance of the above order passed by this Court has been made by the petitioner in true spirit. In case, the evidence of the above two witnesses is not recorded on the said date, on account of paucity of time, then a short date be fixed for the said purpose. It is made clear that in case, he fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity on 08.07.2025 or the next date fixed, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Looking to the fact that rent eviction application is pending since 2018, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible within a period of two months thereafter. 11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/47