Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rent Tribunal's Order Rejecting Tenant's Evidence Citing Delay, Asks Him To Plant & Nurture 11 Trees

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a tenant whose affidavit of evidence filed with delay of over 1 month in an eviction case was not taken on record by the Rent Tribunal citing mandatory nature of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act. 

The court while setting aside the tribunal's order however imposed a unique condition on the petitioner of not only planting 11 shady plants in his vicinity in a public area but also looking after those till final disposal of the application before Rent Tribunal, and further submitting photos of these at every quarter end.

Section 15(3) of the Act provided that the tenant may submit his reply, affidavits and documents within a period not exceeding 45 days from the date of service of notice.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:

"The reasons for passing this present order asking the petitioner to plant 11 plants is in the interest of the public at large 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," the court emphasized. 

An eviction application was filed against the petitioner by the respondent. Petitioner submitted a reply to this application, however, the evidence affidavit was filed with delay of 1.5 months. Owing to this delay, the evidence affidavit was not taken on record by the Tribunal. Hence, the petition was filed.

The petitioner argued that without the affidavit being taken on record, the petitioner would be prejudiced during the proceedings.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the division bench decision of the Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v Chandu Lal & Anr. in which it was held that the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act were “directory” and not “mandatory” in nature.

In this light, the Court set aside and quashed the tribunal's order while imposing a cost of Rs. 2000 on the petitioner to be deposited with the respondents.

Further, in light of public interest, the Court directed the petitioner to plant 11 plants in public area.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Girdhar Gopal v Sanwarmal Sharma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

Click Here To Read/Download Order