[2026:RJ-JP:482]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20235/2025 Satyaveer S/o Shri Prem Prakash, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Madansar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Shop Address Pooja Photo Studio, Mandawa Mode, Jhunjhunu.

---Non-Applicant-Petitioner Versus Rajesh S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Fatehsara, Presently R/o House No. 1 G 1, Housing Board, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu.

---Applicant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

08/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu in Rent Application No.13/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file a supplementary affidavit to support his pleading has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner–tenant submits that while filing the reply, all the grounds and the reasons were elaborately pleaded therein; however, the same could not be incorporated in the affidavit initially filed before the learned Rent Tribunal. Before his cross-examination, an application was moved seeking permission to file a supplementary affidavit in consonance with the pleadings already contained in the reply. However, the said application was wrongly rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal.

permitted to place the supplementary affidavit on record.

prayer and contends that the reply as well as the affidavit were filed in the year 2017 and the present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Thus, the prayer for taking the supplementary affidavit on record has rightly been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the respondent could not refute the position that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the supplementary affidavit already form a part of the reply.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that the supplementary affidavit which the petitioner intends to file is in support of the pleadings already contained in the reply. Once the pleadings are on record, evidence in support thereof, is required to be adduced by way of affidavit. It is pertinent to note that the cross-examination of the petitioner is yet to commence and, therefore, if the supplementary affidavit is permitted to be taken on record, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, as the respondent would be at liberty to cross- examine the petitioner on both the original as well as the supplementary affidavit.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 is quashed and set aside. The supplementary affidavit as filed by the petitioner is permitted to be taken on record. The respondent shall be at liberty to cross-examine the petitioner on the main affidavit as well as the supplementary affidavit.

7. The learned Rent Tribunal is expected to decide the rent petition as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments, keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since the year 2015 and the mandate provided under Section

15(5) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

8. With the above observations, the present misc. writ petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/13