Disposed

Purushottam Ramani S/O Shri Sitaram Ramani v. Krishan Avtar Gupta S/O Late Shri Gangaram Gupta

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2025CW/16760/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a direction to the Rent Tribunal to dispose of an eviction petition within six months. Relying on Supreme Court precedent against time-bound disposal directions, the Court declined to fix any timeline, leaving procedure to the Tribunal while expecting no unnecessary adjournments.

What the court decided

AI extract

Purushottam Ramani S/O Shri Sitaram Ramani Vs Krishan… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44678]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16760/2025

¶4

Purushottam Ramani S/o Shri Sitaram Ramani, Aged About 57 Years, R/o House No. 96-C, Shankar Nagar, Mount Road, Brahmpuri, Jaipur-302002

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Krishan Avtar Gupta S/o Late Shri Gangaram Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o House No. 247, F-101, Shankar Nagar, Mount Road, Brahmpuri, Jaipur-302002, Second Address - Gupta Kirana Store, House No. 96-C, Shankar Nagar, Mount Road, Brahmpuri, Jaipur-302002

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shri Ram Agrawal
For Respondent(s)	:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

06/11/2025

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the learned Rent Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the Eviction Petition No.368/2022.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eviction petition has been pending since 2022, and evidence of the petitioner has not commenced yet. Therefore, he prays that the disposal of the Eviction Petition No.368/2022 may kindly be expedited and disposed of within a period of six months.

¶15

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

¶16

From a bare perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that the eviction petition was filed in 2022, and evidence of the

[2025:RJ-JP:44678]

[CW-16760/2025]

(2 of 3)

petitioner has not commenced yet.

¶21

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra¹ while relying upon the 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 issuing directions to the subordinate Courts to decide the matter within a timeline, the relevant extract of para 47.3 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) is reproduced as under:

¶22

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time- bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;"

¶23

Further, this Court is in respectful agreement with the judgment of the High Court of Madras in S. Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal³ , which re-iterated the principle of law laid down in the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) where it was held as under:

¶24

"12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered."

¶25

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the pending eviction petition within a time-bound manner.

¶26

The concerned Rent Tribunal is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal

¶27

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526

¶28

2 2024 INSC 150

¶29

3 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 674

¶30

(3 of 3) [CW-16760/2025]

¶31

[2025:RJ-JP:44678]

¶32

and to ensure that the cases are disposed of expeditiously within a reasonable period of time; however, it is expected that the learned Rent Tribunal will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment.

¶33

With the aforesaid direction, the present civil writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

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

¶35

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶36

Seema/49

Purushottam Ramani S/O Shri Sitaram Ramani v. Krishan Avtar Gupta S/O Late Shri Gangaram Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Purushottam Ramani S/O Shri Sitaram Ramani v. Krishan Avtar Gupta S/O Late Shri Gangaram Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Kumar Babel S/O Late Shri Manakchand Ji Babel Vs M/S Sarraf Infrastructures Partnership Firm

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Sharma S/O Shri Babulal Vs Kajodmal Sharma S/O Shri Rameshwar

Satyanarayan S/O Shri Ramkumar Vs Girdhari S/O Ramkumar

Mahesh Chand S/O Babulal Katara Vs Gram Panchayat Roodawal (Bharatpur)

Smt. Sajjan Mittal Wife of Late Shyam Sunder Mittal Vs Mrs. Lad Bai