SABBUDDIN Vs. MANJU JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge is the judgment dated 30 -4 -2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal Karauli (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitioner -tenant's (hereinafter 'the tenant') application under Sec. 21(1) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter '2001 Act') for allowing cross examination of the respondent -landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') on her affidavit in evidence in support of the eviction petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the tenant and perused the impugned order dated 30 -4 -2009, thereby the Tribunal has held that the application seeking permission for cross examination of the landlord was not specific on the aspects in respect of which the landlord was to examined.

(3.) Counsel for the tenant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is cryptic and it has overlooked the fact that the cross examination of the deponent on an affidavit was essential for ascertaining the primary issue of landlord -tenant relationship struck on the pleadings of the parties or else the petition for revision of rent as laid by the landlord under Sec. 6 of the Act of 2001 would stand entitled to being allowed on the mere say of the purported landlord. It was submitted that the tenant had denied the relationship of tenant -landlord and reliance placed by the purported landlord on an alleged will dated 21 -10 -1985 executed by one Phool Chand was required to be put to the test of cross examination to ascertain the truth and the very maintainability of the petition. It was submitted that no prejudice would have been caused to the landlord in the event of her cross examination, as prayed for and the Tribunal on balance, in the interest of justice, ought to have allowed the tenant's application for cross examination. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in case of Ramswaroop Vs. Charanjeet Singh [ : RLW 2007 (4) Raj. 3427], wherein this court in the context of eviction petition under Sec. 9 of the Act of 2001 inter alia on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity has held that a question of fact with regard to bona fide and reasonable necessity is required to be ascertained not on affidavit in evidence alone but cross examination of the deponent thereof is necessary for ascertaining the correct facts.