[2026:RJ-JD:11249]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2836/2026 Mukesh Kumar S/o Jagdish Chandra Jagetiya, Aged About 51 Years, Proprietor Shri Manywar Silk Mill, Dudhu Wala Compund, G-02, Nolakha Tower, Dudhu Wala Compound, Pnb Bank Steet, Textile Market, Gandhinagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar Nolakha S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Nolakha, R/o C-65, Bhilwara Textile Markdt, Pur Road, Bhilwara, At Present Opposite Ordia News Agency, Laxminarayan Mandir Road (Lnt Road), Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Somani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

06/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant challenging the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Case No. 23/2024 (Anil Kumar vs. Mukesh Kumar) whereby, while partly allowing the application under Section 19(A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “Act of 2001” hereinafter) filed by the respondent-landlord, the petitioner was directed to deposit rent of the disputed premises from the date of filing of the petition, failing which the petitioner’s defence was liable to be closed. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 22.12.2025 whereby, the defence of the petitioner was closed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned orders. It is contended that Section 19A of the Act of 2001 does not empower the Rent Tribunal to strike off the defence of the tenant in case of non-compliance of the order directing deposit of rent. It is further submitted that there was a dispute regarding payment of rent and that the petitioner had sought time on the ground that certain financial transactions involving his Manager and respondent had resulted in loss. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned orders, submits that despite the clear direction of the Tribunal and repeated opportunities granted over a period of time, the petitioner failed to deposit the rent from the date of filing of the eviction petition, which was admittedly payable at the rate of Rs. 29,150/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal was justified in closing the defence of the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of this Court in “Prakash Chand Bafna vs. Marudhar Vikas Mandal Khadi Bhandar & Ors.” (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25/2026) decided on

10.02.2026

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. On perusal of the order dated 28.10.2025, it is evident that the Rent Tribunal, while considering the application under Section 19A of the Act of 2001, deliberately refrained from passing any direction regarding alleged arrears prior to the filing of the eviction petition, observing that such disputes would require adjudication on evidence. However, in respect of rent payable from the date of filing of the eviction petition, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the same at the admitted rate. The direction was limited in scope and aimed at ensuring payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings, and therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

8. Regarding the subsequent order dated 22.12.2025, by which the petitioner’s defence was struck off, the record indicates that the Tribunal proceeded to take such action despite the petitioner’s repeated non-compliance with the earlier direction to deposit rent. While the Tribunal possesses powers to regulate proceedings and ensure compliance, such powers must be exercised judiciously, particularly when striking off a tenant’s defence would have