Disposed

Nand Kishore Sharma S/O Shri Madanlal v. Shilpi Sharma D/O Late Shri Sanjeev Sharma

Rajasthan HC7 May 2025CW/7030/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against orders closing the tenants' evidence before the Rent Tribunal in an eviction case. The High Court granted one last opportunity to lead evidence on conditions of planting saplings and paying Rs.10,000 cost, and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; last opportunity granted to lead evidence subject to planting 11 saplings and Rs.10,000 cost to respondent.

Nand Kishore Sharma S/O Shri Madanlal Vs Shilpi Sharma… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:19242]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7030/2025

¶4

Nand Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Madanlal, C/o Indu Photo Studio Kotadi, Gumanpura Road, Kota (Raj.)

¶5

Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Madanlal Ji Sharma, C/o Indu Photo Studio Kotadi, Gumanpura Road, Kota (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shilpi Sharma D/o Late Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Resident Of 223, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

07/05/2025

¶14

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders dated 23.08.2024 and 25.03.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota by which the evidence of the petitioners has been closed and the application submitted by the petitioners for granting one opportunity to lead evidence has been rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an eviction application has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) before the Rent Tribunal, Kota wherein after closure of evidence of the respondent, the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioners, but they could not appear on the four dates fixed for the said purpose due to illness, hence, evidence has been closed on 23.08.2024. Counsel submits that an application was submitted by the

[2025:RJ-JP:19242]

[CW-7030/2025]

(2 of 4)

petitioners on 28.11.2024 for granting last opportunity for recording the evidence as the petitioners have failed to appear on the earlier dates on account of illness. The said application submitted by the petitioners were rejected on the count that four opportunities were granted to the petitioners with cost, but the petitioners have failed to avail all the opportunities and accordingly, the evidence of the petitioners was closed and the application filed by the petitioners was rejected vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025.

¶20

Perusal of the order-sheets indicates that the prior to closure of the evidence of petitioners on 23.08.2024, four chances were given and the same were not availed by the petitioners for recording evidence. No justification was given by the petitioners for their non-appearance before the Tribunal, but at the subsequent stage, an application was submitted that due to his illness, they could not appear for leading their evidence. It is true that the petitioners were negligent in appearing before the Tribunal for recording their evidence, but looking to the fact that the evidence of the petitioners is necessary for just disposal of the eviction application submitted against him, by way of last opportunity, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners to lead the evidence on the next date fixed before the Tribunal subject to the following conditions mentioned below:-

¶21

(I) The petitioners would plant 11 saplings/ plants of the shaded trees in public area near vicinity. The aforesaid process would be carried by him within a period of one week from today. He is further directed to look after these plant/ saplings till disposal of the eviction application.

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:19242]

[CW-7030/2025]

The petitioners would submit the photograph of the saplings/ plants with the newspaper of the relevant date with the undertaking that they will take care of these plants.

¶26

(II) In addition, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners, which would be given to the respondent before the next date.

¶27

In case, compliance of this order is made by the petitioners within the above stipulated time, last opportunity be granted to them to adduce their evidence on the next date.

¶28

It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to comply with the above directions issued by this Court and fails to record their evidence on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted for adducing the evidence to them. The reasons for imposing condition No.1 is to make the petitioners realize their negligent attitude towards the pending litigation. This condition is imposed in greater public interest. Planting trees as directed above, 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 and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.

¶29

With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order stands quashed and set-aside. The instant writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this exparte order has been passed by this Court without issuing notice to

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:19242]

[CW-7030/2025]

the respondents. Looking to the fact that the eviction application is pending since 2019 and in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the said application, this order has been passed compensating the respondents by way of cost of Rs.10,000/-. In case, the respondent still feels aggrieved by this order, she would be at liberty to move application for revival of this petition and recall of this order.

¶35

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶37

Aayush Sharma /36

Nand Kishore Sharma S/O Shri Madanlal v. Shilpi Sharma D/O Late Shri Sanjeev Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore Sharma S/O Shri Madanlal v. Shilpi Sharma D/O Late Shri Sanjeev Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Choudhary Paramedical College Vs the State of Rajasthan

Navjeevan Institute of Paramedical Sciences Vs the State of Rajasthan

Devbux S/O Bhambu Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangli and Anr. Vs Board of Revenue and Ors.

Satyanarayan Sharma S/O Shri Bihari Lal Sharma Vs the Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Employees Provident Fund Organization

Manmohan Son of Shri Bajrang Lal Vs Ganga Devi Wife of Late Damodar Lal Garg