Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Ramswaroop @ Pappu S/o Bobad Ram Saini – Appellant
Versus
Moolchand Saini S/o Kalluu Ram Saini – Respondent
ORDER :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 05.03.2024 and 11.03.2025 passed by the Executing Court, Rent Tribunal by which warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC has been issued against the petitioner for vacating the rented premises. A prayer has been made for issuing direction to the Rent Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal expeditiously.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondents against the petitioner for his eviction from the rented premises. The said application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar by order dated 05.03.2024 against which a statutory appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Appellate Tribunal on 02.05.2024. Counsel submits that final arguments have been heard in the said appeal and only the judgment remains to be pronounced. Final arguments have already been heard on the said appeal on 28.01.2025 and thereafter, the case was posted for 13.02.2025, 18.02.2025 & 21.02.2025 for pronouncement of the judgment. Thereafter on 06.
Judicial discipline mandates timely delivery of judgments, with delays infringing on the right to speedy justice under Article 21.
Appeal against order of eviction – It is not expected from Rent Appellate Tribunal to keep Judgment reserved for an indefinite period.
The right to timely resolution of rent disputes is fundamental under Article 21, necessitating the Appellate Tribunal to adhere to statutory timelines for appeals to prevent undue hardship to landlor....
The court upheld the dismissal of the tenant's appeal due to negligence and failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant.
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 j....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Rent Tribunal to have not less than three years of experience as mandated by Section 1....
The appellate court has the discretion to frame additional issues and record additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 25 and Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
