Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Nath vs Hira Chand Kothari on 9 September, 2016
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 2977 of 2016
RAJESH NATH - VS - HIRA CHAND KOTHARI
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 2977 of 2016
PETITIONER:
Rajesh Nath S/o Shri Mohannath Ji, Aged about 57
years, By caste Nath, R/o Mahamandir (Asan), Near II
Pol, Jodhpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Hira Chand Kothari S/o Shri Ratan Lal Kothari, R/o
Mahmandir (Asan), Near II Pol, Jodhpur.
Date of Order : 9.9.2016
HON'BLE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Mr. Avni Chhangani, for the petitioner.
ORDER
-----
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metroloplitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Petition No.397/2014, whereby the Tribunal has accepted the application filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 2977 of 2016 RAJESH NATH - VS - HIRA CHAND KOTHARI 2/3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') and ordered for taking his reply on record with a cost of Rs.1000/- while condoning the delay in filing the reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking reply of the respondent to the eviction petition on record though the same was filed after a delay of more than five months. It is also argued that the reasons given by the respondent for filing reply to the eviction petition with a delay are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing reply and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record.
In the eviction petition filed by the petitioner, the respondent failed to file reply within 45 days from the date of service of notice as per the Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001. Subsequently, he moved an application under Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act while claiming that as his son met with an accident and is under treatment at Ahmadabad, he could not file reply to the eviction petition within stipulated time, therefore, he may be allowed to file reply to the eviction petition and the delay in filing the same may kindly be condoned. The application filed by the respondent under Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 was contested by the petitioner by filing reply, wherein it was prayed that the application be dismissed.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 2977 of 2016 RAJESH NATH - VS - HIRA CHAND KOTHARI 3/3 The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and after placing reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) WLC (Raj.) 22 has allowed the application filed by the respondent and ordered for taking on record the reply to the eviction petition filed by him at the cost of Rs.1000/-. While allowing the application, the Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that in view of the principle of natural justice, the reply filed by the respondent is required to be taken on record.
I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has exercised his discretion in taking the reply filed on behalf of the respondent on record in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the discretion exercised by it is not liable to be interfered with lightly while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.
Abhishek 3