Jay Singh vs Asha

This petition is directed against order dated 31.8.18 of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby the application made by the petitioner seeking leave to cross examine the respondent-landlord and her witnesses, stands rejected.

The respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a residential premises under the provisions of Section 9(i) & 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"). The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. In support of the case set out, the respondent has filed her own affidavit as also affidavit of one Smt. Jaishree Shaubhani.

The petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to cross examine the respondent and her witness, which stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has taken a categorical stand that the respondent had agreed to sale the property in question in his favour for consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- has already been paid towards the consideration. It is submitted that factum of service of the proper notice in terms of provisions of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is also in dispute. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is absolutely necessary that the petitioner is extended an opportunity to cross examine the respondent and her witness.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal are summary proceedings wherein the parties to the proceedings cannot claim cross examination of the witnesses as a matter of right. Learned counsel would submit that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in denying the opportunity of cross examination, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics. Learned counsel submitted that if this court comes to the conclusion that an opportunity of cross examine is required to be extended to the petitioner then, the respondent is ready to appear alongwith her witness for examination before the Rent Tribunal on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.12.18.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

In "Ramswaroop vs. Charan Jeet Singh & Ors.", 2007(4) RLW, 3427, a Bench of this court observed that though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal or Appellate Rent Tribunal but, the procedure before the Tribunal has to be in conformity with and in consonance with principles of natural justice. The Court observed that though cross examination of the witnesses of opposite party cannot be claimed as a matter of right, yet such right being valuable right, upon the application made by a party for cross examination of the witnesses of the other party, unless, the circumstances justify denial thereof, in the interest of justice ordinarily such prayer deserves to be granted.

In the matter of "Aasandas vs. State of Rajasthan", (2005) 2 CDR, 1277(Raj.), a Division Bench of this court while interpreting the provisions of Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, held that the discretion vested with the Presiding Officer of Rent Tribunal is not a discretion merely to deny the just prayer for permitting a party to cross examine the witnesses. The Hon'ble Court observed that the Rent Tribunal cannot take it that; ordinarily the prayer for cross examination has to be refused and only in rare cases, cross examination is to be permitted. The Hon'ble Court observed that the principle is other way round. The Bench further observed that where a decision depends on oral testimony and affidavits forms oath against oath, and facts deposed in affidavits are not verifiable from other material on record, ordinarily, in such case, cross examinations ought to be permitted in the interest of giving fair trial to litigants.

Taking into consideration the controversy involved in the instant case noticed above, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be extended an opportunity to cross examine the respondent and her witness, who have filed their affidavits before the Rent Tribunal in support of the case set out in the petition.

Since the petitioner is being permitted to cross examine the respondent and her witness, the respondent also deserves to be permitted to cross examine the petitioner and his witnesses.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 31.8.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, to the extent of denying an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the respondent and her witness, is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner seeking leave to cross examine the respondent-landlord and her witness is allowed. The respondent shall also be entitled to cross examine the petitioner and his witnesses, if any. The respondent and her witness shall appear before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.12.18. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to cross examine the respondent and her witness on the next date of hearing, his right to cross examination shall stand closed. No order as to costs.