CHANDRABHAN RANASARIYA Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed at the behest of the petitioner -tenant assailing order dt. 02.03.2012 rejecting the application for taking certain documents on record filed under Sec. 21 of Rent Control Act, 2001 & Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC dt. 24.05.2011. The non -petitioner filed eviction application under Sec. 9 of Rent Control Act, 2001 and after notice came to be served reply was filed by the petitioner on 07.11.2008 and obviously all the documents upon which he wants to place reliance were supposed to be filed along with the reply itself and even the issues were framed and as is evident from the order impugned itself that at one stage the matter travelled to this Court and there is direction for expeditious disposal of the matter. At this belated stage, the petitioner filed application on 24.05.2011 under Sec. 21 of the Act, 2001 & Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC for taking certain documents on record which according to him has direct bearing on the issue to be adjudicated in the eviction application filed by the non -petitioner -landlord. It will be relevant to record that the documents of which reference has been made in the application (Annx. 3) relate to April/May, 2011 and that as alleged could not have been filed by the petitioner at the stage when the reply came to be filed. Taking note of the documents which the petitioner referred to in his application the learned Tribunal observed that what has been contended by the petitioner in his reply and tile documents which he wants to be taken on record have no direct nexus and apart from it, for the purpose of documents which as alleged are of April/May, 2011 at least the plea under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC may not be available to the petitioner. However, as per the procedure provided under the Act, 2001 the documents upon which one wants to place reliance are to be filed along with the reply itself and what has been referred to by the petitioner in his application about the documents as alleged of April/May, 2011 are of no assistance while examining the application filed by the non -petitioner under the Act, 2001 and this what has been considered by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned dt. 02.03.2012 and this Court does not find any apparent manifest error being committed by the learned Tribunal in passing of the order impugned which may require interference.

(2.) COUNSEL further submits that at least liberty may be granted to the petitioner of taking note of the documents at the time of cross -examination.