Justice Over Procedure: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Nature of Rent Control Evidence Rules

In a significant ruling for landlord-tenant litigation in Rajasthan, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur has reaffirmed that procedural rules, when they impede the cause of justice, should be treated as directory rather than mandatory. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over Girdhar Gopal v. Sanwarmal Sharma & Ors. , set aside an order of the Rent Tribunal that had refused to record an evidence affidavit due to procedural delays.

The Procedural Deadlock

The dispute arose from an eviction application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The petitioner had filed his reply to the eviction plea in May 2025 but failed to attach the mandatory affidavit along with his response. When the petitioner subsequently attempted to introduce the affidavit on July 8, 2025, the Rent Tribunal rejected the submission, ordering it to be consigned to Part-D of the file. The Tribunal viewed the failure to attach the affidavit as a violation of the strict timelines prescribed under the Act.

The Legal Question

The central question before the High Court was whether the timeline for filing an evidence affidavit under Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is a mandatory condition that, if missed, warrants the total rejection of evidence, or whether the court retains the discretion to accept such documents in the interest of justice.

The Court’s Reasoning

Drawing upon the precedent set by a Division Bench in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal & Anr. , Justice Dhand emphasized that procedural law is designed to "advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it."

The High Court drew a parallel between Section 15(3) of the Rent Control Act and Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court observed that just as the requirements under the CPC have been declared directory by the Supreme Court of India, the procedural requirements under the Rent Control Act follow the same logic. Where strict adherence to a timeline would result in undue hardship or injustice to a party, the law must be applied with flexibility.

Key Observations

The judgment provides a clear roadmap for how tribunals should handle procedural lapses:

• "The law of procedure should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory inasmuch as, the object of providing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it."
• "If a strict adherence to the procedure prescribed results in inconvenience or injustice then, the provision providing for such procedure has to be construed liberally."
• "Planting trees... is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city."

A Greening Verdict

While the High Court granted the petitioner relief by ordering the Rent Tribunal to take the affidavit on record, the decision came with specific conditions. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the respondents and, in a unique environmental directive, was ordered to plant 11 shady trees in a public area.

The court mandated that the petitioner must look after these trees until the final disposal of the eviction application and provide photographic proof of their upkeep at the end of every quarter. This move reflects a growing trend of "green justice," where the court leverages its authority to ensure societal benefits alongside legal remedies.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to Tribunals across Rajasthan that procedural rigidity should not be permitted to override the core substantive rights of litigants. By defining the filing requirements as "directory," the High Court has ensured that minor administrative delays do not irrevocably prejudice a party's right to present their case.