Naveen Kumar Jain S/O Late Shri ... vs Sitaram Sharma S/O Late Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2671 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3463/2019

Naveen Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Anup Chand Jain, Aged About
63 Years, R/o Heeralal Mill, Gangapur City, District Sawai
Madhopur.
                                                ----Petitioner/Non Applicant
                                   Versus
Sitaram Sharma S/o Late Shri Radheyshyam Sharma, R/o Panda
Building, Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai
Madhopur.
                                                   ----Respondent/Applicant

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Khandal, Advocate (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

07/07/2021

This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by

the Rent Tribunal, Gangapur City, whereby the application filed by

the petitioner-non applicant (for short, 'the non applicant') for

cross-examining the respondent-applicant (for short, 'the

applicant') and his witnesses has been partly allowed and denied

the opportunity to cross-examine rest of the applicant's witnesses.

Learned counsel for the non applicant submits that the

respondent-applicant (for short, 'the applicant') filed an original

petition under Section 9 and 9A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,

2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001') before the Rent Tribunal,

Gangapur City on the ground of default in payment of rent as well

(2 of 3) [CW-3463/2019]

as on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity. The

applicant filed his affidavit as also the affidavits of his witnesses in

evidence. In this view of the matter, the non applicant filed the

application to cross-examine the applicant and his witnesses.

However, the learned Rent Tribunal committed an error while

partly allowing the application and denying to cross-examine rest

of the applicant's witnesses. He further submits that denying the

right of cross-examination is violative of principle of natural

justice. On this count, the impugned order is liable to be quashed

and set-aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Tek Chand Versus State & Ors. reported in

2005 (3) DNJ 1346.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant

submits that the non applicant has committed default in payment

of rent. However, he has no objection in the event an opportunity

is granted to the non applicant to cross-examine the applicant's

witnesses.

Heard. Considered.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case, more particularly in view of the consent given by the

applicant as also the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Tek Chand (supra), I am of the opinion

that in would be in the interest of justice if an opportunity is

granted to the non applicant to cross-examine the applicant's

witnesses.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

order 8.1.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal is set aside; the

application filed by the non applicant is allowed and he is

(3 of 3) [CW-3463/2019]

permitted to cross-examine the applicant's witnesses as well.

Learned counsel for the applicant has agreed to produce all the

applicant's witnesses for their cross-examination before the Rent

Tribunal on 28.7.2021. The Rent Tribunal shall allow only one

opportunity to the non applicant to cross examine the non

applicant's witnesses and no further opportunity will be granted to

the non applicant in that regard.

Consequent upon disposal of the writ petition, interim

order dated 13.3.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court stands vacated and the stay application stands disposed of.

In view of the fact that the eviction petition is pending

for adjudication before the Rent Tribunal since the year 2018, the

Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the same expeditiously but not

later than 9 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this order.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DILIP KHANDELWAL /23

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)