INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.09.2012 whereby right to reply was closed by the Rent Tribunal as well as against the order dated 23.11.2012 whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing the reply was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-landlord filed an eviction application against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal. The matter was listed before the Rent Tribunal on 10.09.2012, on the said date the petitioner-tenant sought time to file reply. However, the time was not granted and reply was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant filed an application before the Rent Tribunal alongwith reply to the eviction application on 22.09.2012 after a delay of twelve days. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is mandatory in nature and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the reply.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 15(3) is directory in nature and not mandatory. He further submits that the Learned Rent Tribunal was having powers to condone the delay in filing the reply. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 Rajasthan 87 wherein para No.19 has held as under:- "19. Thus, it is settled position of law that the law of procedure should ordinarily be construed as mandatory inasmuch as, the object of providing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and 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. As noticed above, the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001 is in substance pari materia to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC which has been held to be directory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid , in our considered opinion, for the parity of the reasons, the provisions of Section 15 (3) also deserves to be held directory in character and mandatory.";