[2025:RJ-JP:42351] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15853/2025 Daulat Ram Son Of Shri Prahlad Rai, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of New Colony, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Lalita Wife Of Ashok Kumar Nawal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gate No. 02, Rajat Grah Colony, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, Ms. Jyotsana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bundi (Rajasthan) in Rent Application No. 01/2024 titled as 'Lalita Vs. Daulat Ram', whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, it was mandatory for the landlord to file an affidavit of evidence along with the original rent application. However, in the present case, the landlord submitted the affidavit of evidence only after the framing of issues. Therefore, the affidavit of evidence ought not to have been taken on record, and the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s objection on this ground. [2025:RJ-JP:42351] (2 of 3) [CW-15853/2025] 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Court below has considered the matter in detail and has held that the affidavit of evidence was filed immediately after the framing of issues. 5. Though it may be observed that the affidavit of evidence ought to have been filed along with the original application, the learned Court treated the said lapse as a mere procedural irregularity. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and Ors.1 while elucidating on the conflict between procedural law and substantive law held as under: "8. A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object which is sought to be achieved. A procedural law is always subservient to the substantive law. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing can be taken away be the procedural law what is given by the substantive law." 7. The primary object is to prevent injustice and ensure that party’s substantive rights are not unduly sacrificed due to procedural omission, and such requests are to be viewed as an effort to revive the proceedings and prevent a harsh consequence upon the parties. 8. Thus, it is a trite principle of law that the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice, and when procedural and substantive considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Accordingly, 1 1998 INSC 170 [2025:RJ-JP:42351] (3 of 3) [CW-15853/2025] in order to do complete justice between the parties, the affidavit of evidence was rightly taken on record. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/4