[2025:RJ-JP:32741] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12404/2025 Mohinder Verma S/o Shri Nand Lal Verma, aged about 59 Years, R/o 1, Village Defence Colony, Vashitha Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Yagya Mitra Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Chandra, aged about 60 Years, R/o Ad-6B, Devi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur- 302016 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jagmeet Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr.Syed Saadat Ali with Mr.Nadeem Qadeer Ms.Aareen Rizvi & Ms.Uzma Ilyas JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which an opportunity of filing reply by the petitioner has been closed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed an application under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on 05.11.2024. Thereafter, a notice of the aforesaid application was served upon the petitioner on 06.12.2024. Counsel submits that certain time was granted by the Tribunal to the petitioner for filing reply and paying due rent to the [2025:RJ-JP:32741] (2 of 4) [CW-12404/2025] respondent. Counsel further submits that although the reply could not be submitted, but the due rent has been paid by the petitioner and the reply could not be submitted on account of the petitioner suffering from Dengue. 3. Counsel submits that now, opportunity for filing reply of the petitioner has been closed and the petitioner wants to place certain documents with the reply in support of his contention and defence, therefore, last opportunity of filing reply be granted to the petitioner, subject to payment of appropriate cost. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the due rent was not paid by the petitioner for a considerable time, hence, an application under Section 22 of the Act of 2001 was submitted against him before the Tribunal and the aforesaid notice was served upon him on 06.12.2024 and thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner on 20.01.2025, 15.02.2025 & 07.03.2025 and each and every date, cost of Rs.1,500/- was imposed upon the petitioner. In spite of all above, neither the reply was filed nor the due rent was paid by the petitioner and even on 24.03.2025, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing the reply, but in spite of that the petitioner did not file the reply. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the order impugned dated 16.04.2025 by which the opportunity of the petitioner for filing reply has been rightly closed, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:32741] (3 of 4) [CW-12404/2025] 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 22 of the Act of 2001 has been submitted by the respondent against the petitioner on 05.11.2024 before the Tribunal. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was served on 06.12.2024 and several opportunities were granted to him on different occasions with an imposition of cost of Rs.1,500/- on every occasion, in spite of availing the aforesaid opportunities, the petitioner did not submit the reply. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was negligent in not filing the reply and this fact cannot be lost sight of that in absence of the reply of the petitioner, he cannot be in a position to contest the matter against the respondent before the Tribunal. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following terms and conditions which are as follows:- (I) The petitioner would pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent before the next date. (II) The petitioner would implant 21 shady plants in his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him, prior to the next date fixed before the Tribunal and he is further directed to look after these plants till final disposal of the rent eviction application. (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these plants before the Tribunal to show that the condition No.2 imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him. 9. The reasons for passing this present order asking the petitioner to plant 21 plants is in the interest of the public at large [2025:RJ-JP:32741] (4 of 4) [CW-12404/2025] 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. 10. The Tribunal is directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner for filing reply, in case, the petitioner fails to file reply on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose and the Tribunal would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /45