Rajasthan High Court Quashes Tribunal's Rejection of Affidavit, Orders Environmental Initiative
Court Declares Section 15(3) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 Directory, Not Mandatory; Petitioner Directed to Plant Trees
In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at its Jaipur Bench has quashed the Rent Tribunal's order which rejected an affidavit submitted belatedly by the petitioner, Girdhar Gopal. The decision, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand on September 11, 2025, emphasized the directory nature of Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, thereby allowing procedural leniency to advance the cause of justice.
The case arose when the petitioner failed to submit his affidavit along with his reply within the prescribed timeframe while contesting an eviction application filed by respondent Sanwarmal Sharma under Section 9 of the Act. The Tribunal had initially ordered the affidavit to be kept in Part-D of the file, effectively sidelining it due to the delay. The High Court, however, set aside this order, underscoring that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.
Drawing upon precedents, including a Division Bench ruling in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal, the Court reiterated that procedural provisions like Section 15(3) are not mandatory but directory. This perspective aligns with the broader legal principle that procedural technicalities should not hinder substantive justice.
In a unique twist, the Court imposed conditions on the petitioner for the affidavit's acceptance. Girdhar Gopal is required to pay Rs. 2,000 as costs to the respondents and undertake an environmental directive to plant 11 shady trees in a public area. The petitioner must ensure the trees' maintenance and provide photographic compliance evidence quarterly to the Tribunal. This directive reflects the Court's commitment to public interest and environmental sustainability.
Justice Dhand highlighted that the tree plantation serves the greater public good, offering long-term benefits such as cleaner air and a sustainable environment for future generations. The judgment not only resolves the immediate legal issue but also fosters community welfare through ecological responsibility.
The Court's decision to allow procedural leniency is expected to facilitate a fair hearing for the petitioner, preventing undue prejudice in the ongoing proceedings. It also sets a precedent for balancing legal compliance with broader social and environmental responsibilities.
The case will proceed with these conditions, and the writ petition stands disposed of with the stipulated directives. Any aggrieved party retains the liberty to challenge this order, ensuring judicial fairness and transparency.
Bottom Line:
Compliance of Section 15(3) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is directory and not mandatory.
Statutory provision(s): Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 Section 15(3), Section 9
Girdhar Gopal v. Sanwarmal Sharma, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2783799
