Shanti Lal vs Nemichand

The instant writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by petitioner-tenant to challenge order dated 03.12.2018 (Annex.2), passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'Tribunal'), rejecting his application under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'Act of 2001').

The facts, in brief, are that respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 by taking shelter of reasonable and bonafide necessity. After closure of evidence of respondent-landlord, on number of occasions petitioner-defendant did not appear for cross-examination on his affidavit. Petitioner, after availing many opportunities, filed the aforesaid application on 27.11.2018 with alternative prayer, i.e. either to examine him by appointing Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC, or grant him one more opportunity to appear for deposing. The learned Tribunal, after hearing rival parties, turned down his request and rejected the application taking into account the very vital fact that petitioner has already availed umpteen opportunities.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

During the course of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that next date of hearing before the learned Tribunal is 22.05.2019 and, on the appointed date, petitioner will appear for cross-examination, therefore, taking into consideration the lis involved in the matter, one last opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of himself as well as his witness on their respective affidavits.

Although learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has resisted the prayer, but, alternatively, it is submitted by learned counsel that if any indulgence is granted by the Court then petitioner may be saddled with exemplary cost.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in adherence of the principles of natural justice, I feel persuaded to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the learned Tribunal for cross-examination with his other witness, however, this sort of indulgence can only be granted subject to payment of cost.

In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is permitted to appear before the learned Tribunal with his witness for their cross-examination on their respective affidavits on the ensuing date of hearing, i.e. 22.05.2019, positively, after paying cost of Rs.10,000/-to the respondent-landlord.

It is made clear that the cost imposed is required to be deposited by the petitioner before learned Tribunal on or before the ensuing date of hearing and this is the last opportunity granted to him. No further adjournment in this connection shall be granted by learned Tribunal.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.