INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan) whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant for taking on record the reply to the original petition was rejected.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the application (Annexure-2) filed for taking on record the reply, there was a delay of only four days in submitting the reply before the Tribunal. Counsel further submits that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-tenant for submitting the reply on payment of cost.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhapur in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and another in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1132/2008 decided on 14.01.2009 wherein it has been held as under:- "28. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that while refusing to take the rejoinder filed on behalf of the landlord on record, the learned tribunal has considered the relevant aspects of the matter which necessitates the filing of the rejoinder. The learned tribunal has refused to take the rejoinder on record that the landlord is required to prove his case and therefore, even if the new facts are introduced by the tenant in the reply, he is adversely affected. It is reiterated that defence of a party to the proceedings before all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities must always be fairly heard therefore,if the tenant has introduced new facts in the reply to the petition filed then, the landlord cannot be denied the opportunity to controvert the same. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned tribunal was justified in refusing to take the rejoinder filed on behalf of the landlord on record by adopting erroneous reasoning. Accordingly, the matter with regard to the leave sought by the respondent no. 1 for filing the rejoinder is required to be considered by the learned tribunal afresh keeping in view , the position of law as noticed above. 29. In the result, the appeals succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 6.8.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in all the three writ petitions are set aside. The writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 are partly allowed. The orders impugned passed by the learned tribunal in Rent Petition Nos. 63/07 and 58/07 and order dated 28.5.98 passed in Rent Petition No. 59/07 by the Rent tribunal, Sri Ganganagar are set aside to the extent the learned tribunal has refused to take the rejoinder filed on behalf of the landlord on record. The matter with regard to taking of rejoinder on record shall be considered afresh by the learned tribunal in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned tribunal taking the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant on record is confirmed with the modification that the reply shall be taken 21 on record provided the appellant-tenant makes payment of cost to the landlord quantified at Rs. 1500/- in each case.";