GHANSHYAM KHURADIYA Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2008, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') applicaiton for taking on record two additional affidavits � that of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan for the purpose of plaintiff's evidence.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed an application for eviction of the rented premises against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 19.09.2003. As required under Section 15 of the Rent control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') the plaintiff submitted affidavits of three witnesses upon whom he sought to rely upon in support of his case. Subsequently, on 19.02.2004, the plaintiff also filed affidavits of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan as his witnesses. On the date of the filing of the affidavits, the counsel for the non-applicants tenants raised an objection with regard to the belated filing of the affidavits contrary to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001. No order however was passed by the Tribunal at the relevent time.

(3.) FROM the facts on record it is evident that the two additional affidavits of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan were filed on 19.02.2004 even before the commencement of plaintiff's evidence in support of his case for eviction of the non-applicants tenants. The provisions under Section 15 of the Act of 2001 are not mandatory and leave enough scope for the Presiding Officer to exercise her discretion in allowing a delayed filing of documents in the eviction petition with reference to the facts of the case. In the facts of the instant case, in my considered opinion as the plaintiff's evidence has not even commenced there would have been no prejudice to the non-applicants tenants in the eviction petition, the affidavits in issue should have been taken on record. The ground of the additional affidavits not being accompanied by a formal application with a prayer that they be taken on record was a specious ground and if the Tribunal desired that such an application was required, the plaintiff should have been asked to supply the defect that very day. Proceedings before the Tribunal are not burdened by formal procedure as per the Code of Civil Procedure and are merely required to be complicit with the principles of natural justice.