[2025:RJ-JP:24041] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9176/2025 Amar Singh Jangir S/o Shri Banwari Lal Jangir, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Maulaheda, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Puranmal Jangir S/o Shri Moolchand Jangir, R/o Nyorana, Tehsil And District Neem Ka Thana (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav and Mr. Manish Saini For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan First, by which the written statement submitted by the petitioner has been taken on record, but the same has been kept in D part of the record. 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 201’) has been submitted by the respondent against the petitioner for his eviction from the subject premises. Counsel submits that after receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal on 30.11.2023 and sought time to file reply to the aforesaid application, but the reply could not be submitted due to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. Counsel submits that finally the [2025:RJ-JP:24041] (2 of 4) [CW-9176/2025] written statement was prepared and the same was submitted on the record of the Tribunal on 19.02.2024, but instead of enclosing it with the original record, the same has been ordered to be kept in D part of the record. Counsel submits that unless and until, the reply and the pleadings of the petitioner is taken on record, he would not be in a position to contest the matter of his eviction before the Tribunal, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 as well as the record indicate that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 has been submitted by the respondent against the petitioner in the year 2023 and the petitioner was served with notice and thereafter, he appeared before the Tribunal on 30.11.2023 and submitted an undertaking to file reply to the aforesaid application on the next date, thereafter, several dates were posted for the aforesaid purpose, but the petitioner has failed to submit the same, hence, a last opportunity was granted to him vide order dated 16.02.2024 at the cost of Rs.500/-, but in-spite of that, reply was not submitted and finally the opportunity of filing reply was closed on 16.08.2024. It appears that sometime thereafter i.e. on 19.12.2024, the reply in the form of written statement had been submitted by the petitioner, however, the same was not allowed to be taken on record, but the same was ordered to be retained in the D part of the file. This fact is not in dispute that [2025:RJ-JP:24041] (3 of 4) [CW-9176/2025] the petitioner was negligent in litigating his matter before the Tribunal. This fact is also not in dispute that in-spite of availing several opportunities, he has failed to submit reply before the Tribunal for a considerable time. The sole object was to delay the disposal of application submitted by the respondent. This fact cannot lost sight that principle of natural justice requires that before passing any order against a litigant, an opportunity is required to be given to defend his matter before the Court below. 5. Keeping in view the above principle in mind, the order dated 09.01.2024 stands quashed and set aside with the following two conditions: (I) The petitioner would plant 21 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in public vicinity area. The aforesaid process would be carried out by him within a period of two weeks from today and he will submit compliance report before the Tribunal with the undertaking that he will look after all these trees, till final disposal of the application pending against him. (II) In addition, the petitioner is further directed to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent before the next date. 6. The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 21 saplings/plants is in the interest of 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 [2025:RJ-JP:24041] (4 of 4) [CW-9176/2025] for decades and centuries. Future generations will get benefit from cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. 7. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the order dated 09.01.2025 will come into play automatically and the written submission of the petitioner would not be taken into count. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions passed by this Court before the next date, then the reply submitted by the petitioner be taken on the record and the same be considered strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this ex-parte order has been passed without issuing notice to the other side, keeping in view that the rent eviction application submitted by the respondent is lying pending before this Court and in order to avoid delay in disposal of the said application. Even if, the other side feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move application for revival of this petition and recall of this order. 10. The Tribunal is expected to expedite the proceedings of the application pending before it. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/41