In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is directory and not mandatory. The decision came in the case titled Shankar Lal v. Jugal Kishore & Others, where the Court quashed the Rent Tribunal’s order that rejected the petitioner’s affidavit for not being filed along with the reply.
The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, had refused to take the petitioner’s affidavit on record, citing non-compliance with Section 15 of the Act. The section mandates the filing of affidavits and documents along with the reply within 45 days from the notice service date.
However, the petitioner argued that this provision is not mandatory, referring to the Division Bench judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal & Another, where it was clearly held that Section 15(3) should be treated as a directory clause.
Read Also:- DM Tenders Apology to Allahabad High Court for "Insulting" Affidavit in Graveyard Encroachment Case
After hearing both sides, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reviewed the matter in detail and relied upon the earlier authoritative judgment by the Division Bench, which had further relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of procedural laws.
“It is settled position of law that 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 so as to meet the ends of justice,”
— Rajasthan High Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal
Read also:- Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in Terror Funding Case
In light of this, the Court found that the Rent Tribunal's insistence on a technical requirement had caused injustice, especially since the eviction case had been pending since 2009. The Court therefore allowed the writ petition, directing the Tribunal to accept the affidavit and conclude the matter swiftly.
“Since the controversy involved in this petition was set at rest by Division Bench... the impugned order... is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside,”
— Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
The High Court instructed the Tribunal to take the affidavit on record and dispose of the eviction application preferably within one year.
Title: Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors.
