IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that while procedural provisions may be directory, a party must substantiate claims of hardship to justify delays in legal proceedings.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :-

"(i) that impugned order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure- 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) that impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure- 8) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) that the reply to eviction petition (Annexure-3) of the petitioner be taken on record."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord preferred an eviction petition against the petitioner. The learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur issued notices to the petitioner-tenant on 21.12.2021. The petitioner sought time to file reply to the eviction petition and on 11.02.2022, the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur closed the reply of the petitioner. On 17.10.2022, the petitioner filed his reply along with his application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-8) by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same has preferred this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the learned Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioner on 21.12.2021 and the petitioner had sought time to file reply, however, on account of the illness suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner could not file the reply to the eviction petition within the stipulated time period as per the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the delay in filing the reply to the eviction petition filed by the respondent ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice particularly looking to the fact that the petitioner suffered from illness. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the order dated 14.01.2009 passed in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and Anr. reported in (2009) 0 AIR (Raj) 87 and submits that the provision as laid down under Section 15(3) of the Act of 2001 is directory in nature and not mandatory and thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the reply to the eviction petition. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder :-

"Thus, it is settled position of law that the law of procedure should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory inasmuch as, the object of providing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. If a strict adherence to the procedure prescribed results in inconvenience or injustice then, the provision providing for such procedure has to be construed liberally so as to meet the ends of justice. As noticed above, the provision contained in subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001 is in substance pari materia to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC which has been held to be directory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, in our considered opinion, for the parity of the reasons, the provisions of Section 15(3) also deserves to be held directory in character and not mandatory."

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the contention of the petitioner that on account of the suffering from illness, the petitioner could not file the reply well in time is absolutely false and frivolous as the petitioner has not placed any document on record before the learned Tribunal as well as before the appellate Court and this Court in order to show that the petitioner had actually suffered from some illness due to which the reply could not be filed by him well within time. Learned counsel for the responde