The court established that while adherence to procedural timelines is crucial, courts may exercise discretion to allow additional opportunities for parties to present their cases in the interest of justice.

ORDER

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, No.1 (Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.1), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in Original Application No.607/2019, titled as Smt. Mehnaaz Hussain Vs. Ghanshyam Swami, whereby the application under Section 151 of C.P.C. dated 08.01.2021 filed by the petitioner to consider the delay and allow him an opportunity to file reply to the original application, had been dismissed.

2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of the petitioner on 14.10.2019. The learned Tribunal closed the right of the petitioner to file the reply to the original application on 02.01.2020. The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. to consider the delay and grant him an opportunity to file reply to the original application, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.01.2021 by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Counsel has further submitted that it is a settled law that forty-five days time should be granted from the date of filing of Vakalatnama/Power by the Advocate to file reply to the original application. However, the same was not followed by learned Tribunal and it erroneously closed the right of the petitioner to file the reply to the original application. As such, the petition may kindly be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders and the material made available on record.

6. Section 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 reads as under :-

"15. (3) The tenant may submit his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner, within a period not exceeding forty five days from the date of service of notice."

7. Admittedly, notice to the petitioner had been served on 01.11.2019 and the learned Tribunal has rightly closed the right of the petitioner to file reply to the original application on 02.01.2020.

8. In view of above, the contention of the petitioner that it is a settled law that forty-five days should be granted from the date of filing of Vakalatnama/ Power by the Advocate to submit the reply to the original application, is not tenable.

9. However, considering the facts, circumstances and duration of delay and in the interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 02.01.2020 and 16.01.2021 are set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C. dated 08.01.2021 is allowed. In the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to file reply to the original application filed by the non-petitioner before the learned Tribunal within a period of thirty-days from today i.e. 15.04.2021, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-.

10. It is further made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to pay the cost, as directed herein-above and does not file the written-statement within a stipulated period, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.

11. With above directions, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.