Hon ble LODHA, J.—These three appeals arise out of the similar orders dated 6.8.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions Nos. 3944/08, 3945/08 and 3946/08. By the orders under appeal, the aforesaid writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner, respondent No.1 herein assailing the validity of orders dated 24.5.98 passed in Rent Petition No. 63/07 and 58/07 and order dated 28.5.98 passed in Rent Petition No. 59/07 by the Rent tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (in short "the tribunal" hereinafter) have been allowed and the aforesaid orders impugned in the writ petitions passed by the learned tribunal taking the reply to the petitions filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant on record have been set aside.

(2). Since the questions involved in all these three appeals arising from the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Single Judge are identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. For the convenience, the facts of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1132/98 arising from writ petition No. 3946/08 are being taken into consideration as a lead case.

(3). The relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondent-landlord, preferred a petition against the appellant-tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act of 2001" hereinafter) for his eviction from the suit premises, on the ground of reasonable bona fide necessity. A notice issued by the tribunal was served upon the appellant on 17.11.07. In pursuance thereof, the counsel for the appellant-tenant appeared before the learned tribunal on the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 17.12.07 and filed the power on his behalf. From the perusal of order sheets placed on record as Annexure 5, it is revealed that on the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 27.2.08. A reply to the petition was filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant before the learned tribunal on 27.2.08 and the matter was adjourned to 18.3.08 for evidence. On the next date of hearing, an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short "CPC" hereinafter) seeking leave to file rejoinder was preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The rejoinder was also filed alongwith the said application. At the same time, by way of yet another application, the respondent No. 1 objected the reply to the petition filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant after expiry of period of 45 days being taken on record.

(4). After hearing both the parties and due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal opined that keeping in view the principles of natural justice and to subserve the cause of justice, the reply to the petition filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant deserves to be taken on record. Accordingly, the application preferred by the respondent No. 1, objecting the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant being taken on record was rejected by the learned tribunal vide order dated 28.5.08. By the self same order, the application preferred by the respondent No. 1 seeking leave to file rejoinder was also rejected. In these circumstances, the validity of the order passed by the learned tribunal in each case separately was assailed by the respondent No. 1 herein by way of writ petitions before this Court as detailed supra.

(5). It was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 before the learned Single Judge that in view of the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, the reply filed by the appellant-tenant after expiry of period of 45 days from the date of the service of the notice could not have been taken on record by the learned tribunal. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the appellant-tenant that due to ignorance of law on the part of the counsel representing the tenant, the reply could not be filed within the period of 45 days therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances, the learned tribunal was justifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document