IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal against order of eviction – It is not expected from Rent Appellate Tribunal to keep Judgment reserved for an indefinite period.

ORDER

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 06.03.2025, the case was posted for 24.03.2025 for pronouncement of the judgment, but till date, the appeal has not been decided and the judgment has not been pronounced and in the meantime, the Executing Court is proceeding further to evict the petitioner from the rented premises, therefore, appropriate orders are required to be passed.

3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

4. Against the eviction order dated 05.03.2024, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Alwar, wherein after hearing the final arguments, the matter has been kept for pronouncement of the judgment since February, 2025, but in spite of passing of considerable time, till date, the judgment has not been pronounced.

5. It is not expected from the Rent Appellate Tribunal to keep the judgment reserved for an indefinite period, more particularly, when the arguments have been heard and concluded on 28.01.2025 itself, the Presiding Officer is not expected to keep on posting the matter for pronouncement of judgment from one date to another.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 (12) SCC 603 has considered it imperative that the Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments and has held in para 1, 10 to 13 as under:-

“1. … Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments—an aspect repeatedly emphasised by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.

* * * * *

10. We must note with regret that the counsel extended through various judicial pronouncements including the one referred to aforesaid appear to have been ignored, more importantly where oral orders are pronounced. In case of such orders, it is expected that they are either dictated in the court or at least must follow immediately thereafter, to facilitate any aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher court. The delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Anil Rai case [(2001) 7 SCC 318] and as stated aforesaid, the problem gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early and the reasons follow much later.

11. It cannot be countenanced that between the date of the operative portion of the order and the reasons disclosed, there is a hiatus period of nine months! This is much more than what has been observed to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved judgment as per Anil Rai case.

12. The appellant undoubtedly being the aggrieved party and prejudiced by