MURLIDHAR SHARMA Vs. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the orders impugned in these two petitions preferred by the tenant relate to different issues and different eviction petitions; but for the litigation being between the same parties and for the stand taken in these petitions, it appears convenient as well as proper to decide both these petitions by this common order.

(2.) Background facts in relation to CWP 2796/2006 are that in Eviction Petition No. 439/2005 filed for eviction from shop No. 3 at Plot No. 214, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur on the ground of default in payment of rent, the petitioner-tenant took the defence that he had made deposits of rent in the bank account of landlord on 04.06.2004 and on 26.08.2004 and asserted that there was no rent due. It appears that on 26.07.2005, the respondent-landlord moved an application stating that upon obtaining the bank statement it was noticed that no such amount was deposited in his bank account; and it was prayed that the bank statement may be taken on record. By the impugned order dated 15.05.2006 (Annex.5), the Tribunal has taken such statement of account on record.

(3.) CWP No. 2797/2006 relates to the other Eviction Petition No. 410/2004 filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant seeking eviction from shop No. 2 at the same address (supra), inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord and non-user of the premises by the tenant. In this petition, the present petitioner sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant and his application dated 21.03.2006 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.05.2006 (Annex.7) on the consideration that earlier the tenant had moved a similar application on 07.10.2005 and the matter remained pending for arguments on the said application quite long and then, on 10.01.2006 the tenant got dismissed the said application as not pressed; and the application now filed by the tenant on the same proposition, seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant, was not maintainable.