Rajasthan HC Refuses to Interfere with Rent Tribunal's Order Allowing Landlord to Exhibit Documents Filed Since 2014

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an Article 227 petition by the legal heirs of a deceased tenant who challenged the Rent Tribunal's decision permitting a landlord to amend his eviction petition and assign exhibit marks to postal documents that had accompanied the petition at its inception in 2014 but had never been formally marked.

Justice Farjand Ali, sitting singly at the Jodhpur principal seat, dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2830/2026 on 6 July 2026, finding no jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality, or perversity in the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan on 18 September 2025. The Tribunal had allowed two applications by landlord Vikas Garg — one under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to assign exhibit marks to a postal receipt and acknowledgment due card, and another under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to amend paragraph 12 of the eviction petition to reference those documents. The High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be invoked merely because a different view was possible, and that the tenants had failed to show any real or substantial prejudice.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The eviction proceedings at the root of this writ petition were initiated by Vikas Garg against the petitioners — the legal heirs of the late Bharat Lakhani — under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in Petition No. 270/2014 before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The petitioners, who reside at 18-E/312, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur, entered appearance after service of summons and filed a reply contesting the eviction petition.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners at one stage remained absent. An application under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC was moved to recall the ex parte proceedings, which the Tribunal allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,500. A subsequent review application by the petitioners was dismissed.

Matters then reached the stage of final arguments. It was at this advanced stage that the landlord moved two separate applications. The first sought permission under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 to assign exhibit marks to the original postal receipt and acknowledgment due card that had, on the Tribunal's own finding, accompanied the eviction petition when it was filed on 28 May 2014. The second application, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, sought amendment of paragraph 12 of the eviction petition to incorporate a reference to those same documents, which had been omitted owing to an inadvertent typographical and clerical error at the time of presentation.

The petitioners opposed both applications. They argued that the matter had reached final arguments; that the proposed amendment was sought after an inordinate delay; that such omissions could not be cured at so late a stage; and that allowing the applications would alter the complexion of the eviction petition and prejudice their accrued rights.

The Tribunal rejected those contentions by its impugned order dated 18 September 2025. It recorded that the documents had in fact been filed with the original petition in 2014 and that the omission was merely procedural. It held that the proposed amendment neither introduced any new pleading nor altered the foundation of the eviction proceedings. It also granted the petitioners liberty to file an amended reply if they chose. Aggrieved, the petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution before the Rajasthan High Court.

The Legal Issue: Scope of Article 227 and Amendment at an Advanced Stage

Two distinct but related questions arose. The first was whether the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in allowing an amendment and exhibit-marking application at the stage of final arguments was vitiated by any jurisdictional error, manifest perversity, or patent illegality. The second was whether Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction could be invoked to substitute the High Court's own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised.

The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 governs landlord-tenant relations in the State, including proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. Section 21 of the Act deals with the procedure applicable before the Tribunal; the landlord relied on it alongside Order VI Rule 17 CPC to seek both the exhibit marking and the consequential amendment of the petition.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Farjand Ali began by identifying what the amendment actually entailed. The postal receipt and acknowledgment due card had accompanied the eviction petition at its inception in 2014. The landlord was not seeking to introduce any fresh document or improve his case through additional evidence. The amendment was confined to incorporating, in paragraph 12 of the petition, a reference to documents already available on the record and to assigning exhibit marks to them in accordance with law.

The Court set out the settled principles governing amendments of pleadings. A liberal approach is ordinarily adopted where the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy, does not introduce a fundamentally new or inconsistent case, does not divest the opposite party of any vested or accrued right, and where any possible prejudice can be compensated by giving the opposite party an opportunity to meet the amended pleadings.

Applying those principles, the Court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate how the impugned order caused any real or substantial prejudice. The amendment did not change the character of the eviction proceedings. Permitting exhibit marking of documents already filed on record did not enlarge the respondent's case. The Tribunal had expressly preserved the petitioners' liberty to file an amended reply and contest the documents in accordance with law. No vested right of the petitioners, the Court concluded, had been impaired.

On the constitutional question, the Court was explicit about the limits of Article 227. It held that supervisory jurisdiction is neither an appellate jurisdiction nor a forum for substituting the Court's own discretion merely because another view may also be possible. Interference under Article 227 is warranted only where an impugned order is demonstrably vitiated by patent perversity, manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or a palpable failure of justice. The Court found that none of those conditions were present.

Justice Farjand Ali also addressed the broader principle that rules of procedure are intended to serve as handmaids of justice, not its mistress. He observed that hyper-technical objections ought not to be permitted to defeat adjudication on merits where no irretrievable prejudice is shown to have been occasioned. Procedural law, the Court held, “cannot be permitted to become an instrument for thwarting substantial justice.”

The Court characterised the Tribunal's impugned order as a judicious exercise of discretion aimed at facilitating a complete and effective adjudication of the real controversy, rather than allowing the proceedings to be decided on account of inadvertent procedural lapses or technical omissions. The Tribunal had found as a fact that the documents had been filed in 2014 and that the omission was purely clerical. The High Court found no reason to disagree with or displace that factual finding.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The stay petition and all pending applications were disposed of. No order as to costs was made. The order of the Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan dated 18 September 2025, allowing the landlord's applications under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC, therefore stands. The eviction proceedings in Petition No. 270/2014 will continue before the Rent Tribunal with the amendment and exhibit marking in place, and the petitioners retain the liberty, as granted by the Tribunal, to file an amended reply.