The provisions of Section 15(4) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 are directory, and failure to serve an advance copy does not invalidate a rejoinder without demonstrated prejudice.

Judgment / Order

 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan II (for brevity “learned Rent Tribunal”) in Application No.194/2023 whereby, an objection raised by the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”) against taking on record the rejoinder filed by the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as “respondent”), has been rejected.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “the Act of 2001”) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises comprising of a shop on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity. Therein, the rejoinder filed by the respondent was taken on record by the learned Rent Tribunal on 04.01.2024. Raising an objection that it was beyond the period of 30 days from the date of filing of the reply and was barred by limitation as envisaged under Section 15(4) of the Act of 2001, it was prayed by the petitioner that the order dated 04.01.2024 be recalled and rejoinder filed by the respondent be rejected. The objection was rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned 05.02.2024.

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before filing the rejoinder, it was a statutory obligation on the respondent to have served upon him its advance copy in absence whereof, it could not have been taken on record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 05.02.2024 be quashed and set aside and the objection raised by him against taking on record the rejoinder be sustained.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the order impugned dated 05.02.2024 reveals that the only objection raised by the petitioner against taking on record the rejoinder was it being barred by limitation whereupon, it was held by the learned Rent Tribunal that the provisions of Section 15(4) of the Act of 2001 are directory in nature. It does not reveal that any such objection was raised by the petitioner before it as to non-compliance of provisions of Section 15(4) qua non-serving of an advance copy of the rejoinder. In view thereof, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that this provision is also directory in nature as is qua the period of 30 days from the date of filing of the reply. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that any prejudice was caused to him on account of non-serving of the advance copy of the rejoinder upon him specially, in absence of any such averment that the contents of the rejoinder travel beyond the scope of the new facts/averments in the reply filed by him to the original application.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.