RAMESH CHANDAK Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order Dt. 5.5.13 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC, seeking leave of the Court to produce the documents, stands rejected. The relevant facts are that the respondent No. 2 therein filed a petition under Sec. 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") seeking eviction of the petitioners from the premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity. The petition is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. The respondent -landlord has taken the stand that the tenancy is oral, however, the petitioners -tenant had taken the stand that at the time of letting out the premises, he had advanced a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - to the respondent -landlord vide cheque No. 773766 Dt. 22.3.85 as security deposit and accordingly, a written agreement was executed between the parties. As per the agreement, the security deposit is to be refunded by the respondent -landlord to the petitioners -tenant on the premises being vacated.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the petitioners -tenant preferred an application for taking on record the said agreement and a partition deed executed by the petitioners No. 1 & 2 in respect of the business carried on in the premises in question. The application has been rejected by the trial Court observing that nothing has been explained in the application as to how the documents produced are relevant to the controversy involved in the matter and will help the Court in adjudication of the dispute raised.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the petition preferred for eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable & bona fide necessity, the document sought to be produced has no relevance inasmuch as, for decision of the issue regarding reasonable & bona fide necessity, the terms of the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties have no bearing. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that in absence of any explanation regarding relevancy of the documents sought to be produced, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application.