1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 3.8.13 of the Rent Tribunal, Churu, whereby the rejoinder to reply filed on behalf of the petitioner is refused to be taken on record.

2. The petitioner preferred a petition under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001('the Act') before the Rent Tribunal, Churu, for recovery of possession under Section 11 of the Act, against the respondents-landlord. The respondents filed reply to the petition on 28.9.12 and accordingly, the matter was fixed for filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner, if any. Thereafter, on 12.10.12, 18.11.12, 29.11.12, 20.12.12, 17.1.13 and 28.2.13, the matter was adjourned inasmuch as the petitioner sought time for filing the rejoinder. The rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 12.4.13, however, the same was objected to be taken on record by the respondents. On 3.5.13, the respondents preferred an application with a prayer that the rejoinder filed may be struck off from the record. The application has been allowed by the Rent Tribunal and the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner is refused to be taken on record. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that as per provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act, the rejoinder is required to be filed within a period of one week from the date of service of copy of the reply, but the said provision cannot be construed to be a mandatory provision and for valid reason the Rent Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay. Learned counsel submitted that since the time was granted by the Rent Tribunal for filing the rejoinder and the rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on the date fixed i.e. on 12.4.13, in the interest of justice, the same was required to be taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents on account of the rejoinder being taken on record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal is required to be concluded within the time framed and therefore, the rejoinder filed by the petitioner belatedly cannot be permitted to be taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has rightly declined to take the rejoinder filed after expiry of the period specified under Section 12(3) of the Act on record. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel that on various dates time was granted by the Rent Tribunal to the petitioner to file rejoinder and on 11.4.13, the matter was fixed for filing of the rejoinder, however, since 11.4.13 being declared holiday, the matter was taken up on 12.4.13 and on that day, the rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that if the rejoinder is taken on record, the respondents may be permitted to file counter thereto.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. It is true that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act before the Rent Tribunal is summary proceedings, which is required to be disposed of within a period of 90 days from the date of service of notice on the landlord. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, rejoinder, if any, is required to be filed by the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of service of the reply. But then, the fact remains that the matter was adjourned by the Rent Tribunal time and again for filing the rejoinder and the matter was not fixed for hearing as mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that on 11.4.12, the matter was fixed for filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner.

7. It is pertinent to note that as per provisions of subsection (3) of Section 21 of the Act, the Rent Tribunal shall be guided by principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder have powers to regulate its own procedure. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when