HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9980/2025 Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh, Aged About 79 Years, R/o Church Road, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ramjeelal, Shopkeeper Vinod Timber Marchand, Church Road, Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 24.11.2023 and 10.12.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar (for short “the Tribunal”), the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 24.11.2023, the Rent Eviction Application submitted by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution, against which a restoration application was submitted, however, the same was also rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old person of the age of 79 years and had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the respondent-tenant seeking his eviction before the Tribunal wherein notices were issued to the respondent-tenant, but inspite of service of notice, (2 of 3) [CW-9980/2025] he had failed to appear before the Tribunal, hence, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him vide order dated 20.10.2023 and the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that, on the very same day, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. Learned counsel submits that on account of his illness, the petitioner could not appear before the Tribunal on the next date, i.e., 24.11.2023, hence, the case was dismissed in default for want of prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately, thereafter, a restoration application was submitted under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC wherein it was specifically mentioned that on account of his illness, the petitioner could not appear, on the fateful day before the Tribunal, but this fact was not considered and appreciated by the Tribunal and the restoration application submitted by the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel submits that right of the petitioner for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises has been seriously frustrated by the impugned order and the issues raised by the petitioner have not been decided by the Tribunal on its merits, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that when the notices were issued to the respondent-tenant on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, the respondent (3 of 3) [CW-9980/2025] remained ex parte inspite of service, hence, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him on 20.10.2023. 7. It is worthy to note here that the Tribunal on the very same day granted last opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence and the case was posted for 24.11.2023, but on the said date when the petitioner could not appear on account of his illness, the case was dismissed in default for want of prosecution. 8. These facts were narrated by the petitioner by way of filing restoration application, however, the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons of absence on the fateful day were well-explained by the petitioner, hence, the Tribunal was not justified in passing the order impugned. Accordingly, the orders dated 24.11.2023 and 10.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal stand quashed and set-aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- with the Tribunal, which shall be utilised in favour of the needy litigant and the same shall be kept in the Litigants Welfare Fund. 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.07.2025. The Tribunal is directed to issue fresh notice to the respondent-tenant as he is not aware about passing of present order, and also remained absent when the orders impugned were passed ex parte against him. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/14