AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is directed against order dated 6.9.17 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Rent Case No.1137/14, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners seeking leave to amend the reply and to take the additional affidavit on record, has been rejected.
The facts relevant are that the respondent preferred a petition against the petitioners seeking eviction from a commercial premises inter alia on the ground of reasonable & bonafide necessity and material alteration, which is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners preferred an application for taking a few documents on record. The application was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 2.3.17, observing that the documents sought to be produced are germane to the matter in dispute. The Rent Tribunal observed that the question of admissibility in evidence of some of the documents which are photostat copies, shall be decided at the appropriate stage.
Later, the petitioners preferred an application seeking leave to amend the reply setting out the facts relating to the documents taken on record. The petitioners also filed additional affidavits and prayed for taking the same on record. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned observing that the documents which are produced on record shall be permitted to be exhibited in evidence in accordance with law but on that account, it is not necessary to allow the application seeking leave to amend the reply or to take additional affidavits on record. Accordingly, the application has been rejected. Hence, this petition.
At the outset learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners do not want to press the petition so far as it relate to challenge to the order impugned rejecting the leave to amend the reply, but the additional affidavits filed by the petitioners need to be taken on record. It is submitted that if the affidavits are not taken on record, the documents produced cannot be exhibited in evidence inasmuch as under the Rent Control Act, 2001, the evidence is led by way of affidavits and the examination-in-chief is not recorded by the Rent Tribunal, of course, the rival parties could be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed in support of the case set out and thus, the affidavits produced, whereby while giving the details of the documents, exhibits are marked thereon, deserve to be taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that it is true that the documents produced by the petitioners were taken on record but on that account, the petitioners cannot be permitted to file additional affidavits. It is submitted that without deciding the question of admissibility of the documents, the same cannot be exhibited in evidence and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Indisputably, vide order dated 2.3.17, the documents produced on behalf of the petitioners were taken on record observing that the same are germane to the matter in dispute. While allowing the application, it was specifically observed by the Rent Tribunal that the question with regard to admissibility of the documents shall be considered at the later stage and the respondent herein shall have an opportunity to cross-examine the petitioners in respect of the documents produced. It is pertinent to note that the evidence in first instance in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal is produced by way of affidavits and the exhibits are marked on the documents produced along with the affidavits and thus, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent on account of additional affidavits being taken on record, whereby while only giving the details of the documents, the exhibits are marked thereon. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the additional affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners in respect of the documents already produced, are permitted to be taken on record with liberty to the respondent to question the admissibility of the said documents in evidence at the appropriate stage.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned to the extent of rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to amend the reply is not interfered with, however, additional affidavits produced by the petitioners are directed to be taken on record. The respondent shall be at liberty to file counter affidavits so also to question the admissibility of the documents in evidence. No order as to costs.