Pokhar Mal Tanwar Son of Shri Rewarram, Vs Murli Son of Ramdev — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pokhar Mal Tanwar Son of Shri Rewarram, Vs Murli Son of Ramdev — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ disposed of without issuing the prayed-for timeline directions; Tribunal expected to expedite decision on eviction petition No.141/2020 and to avoid entertaining unnecessary and unreasonable requests for adjournment.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should issue directions to the learned Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I to decide eviction petition No.141/2020 expeditiously, on day to day basis within a period of two months, given that the petitioner is an 81-year-old senior citizen and the petition has been pending since 2020.

Court's answer

The Court held that the directions prayed for — to decide the eviction petition on day to day basis within a period of two months — could not be issued by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

In lieu of the denied directions, the Court expressed the expectation that the learned Tribunal make all possible endeavours to decide the eviction petition expeditiously, ensuring that no unnecessary and unreasonable request for adjournment is entertained.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14516/2025, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Maneesh Sharma, J.), order of 13/10/2025 — Pokhar Mal Tanwar v. Murli: Petitioner (senior citizen, aged 81) sought directions to learned Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I to decide eviction petition No.141/2020, pending adjudication since 2020 (five years) and pending for final arguments since 15.07.2024 with nine adjournments granted, on day to day basis within a period of two months. Citing the Apex Court's deprecation, in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra (footnote: 2024 SCC Online SC 3526), of courts issuing directions imposing timelines on subordinate courts — arrived at while relying on the constitutional Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. (footnote: 2024 INSC 150) — the Court held that the prayed-for directions could not be issued by it; instead, it disposed of the writ, expressing the expectation that the Tribunal make all possible endeavours to decide the eviction petition expeditiously while ensuring no unnecessary and unreasonable request for adjournment is entertained.

[2025:RJ-JP:41739]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14516/2025

Pokhar Mal Tanwar S/o Shri Rewarram, aged about 81 Years, R/o Plot No. A-125, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

Murli S/o Ramdev, aged about 57 Years, R/o 1/485, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur & Plot No.1/953, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Gupta For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

13/10/2025

By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the learned Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I to decide the eviction petition No.141/2020 expeditiously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen having age of 81 years and the case is pending before the Tribunal for its adjudication since 2020 and five years have passed, so appropriate directions be issued to the learned Tribunal to decide the said eviction petition on day to day basis i.e. within a period of two months.

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

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra¹ while relying on the

1 2024 SCC Online SC 3526

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:41739]

[CW-14516/2025]

constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P.² , has deprecated the practice of the Courts of issuing directions to the subordinate Courts to decide the matter in a timeline.

The aforesaid directions, as prayed for, cannot be issued by this Court. But looking at the fact that the petitioner is 81 years of age; the case is pending before the learned Tribunal for final arguments since 15.07.2024 and nine adjournments have been granted. Therefore, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to make all possible endeavours to decide the eviction petition expeditiously while ensuring that no unnecessary and unreasonable request for adjournment is entertained.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

DEEPA-87

2 2024 INSC 150