MAHENDRA KUMAR KABRA Vs. CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.05.2017 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, vide which, the applications filed by the petitioner-tenant for summoning the documents from landlord and from tenant of another shop, were dismissed.

(2.) The respondent-landlord preferred a petition for eviction on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity of rented premises for his son. The petitioner-tenant filed two applications for summoning the documents from witness-Landlord (PW-1) and from tenant of shop No.6- Kedar Narayan. However, the said applications were dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2017 on the ground that the said documents were not necessary for adjudication of the case, especially when the applications were vague and petitioner-tenant has not clarified that the alleged documents were in whose possession.

(3.) While praying for setting aside the order and further allowing applications seeking production of the documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation of the learned Rent Tribunal was incorrect. The petitioner had specifically submitted in the application that the documents were in the possession of the respondent-landlord. Secondly, the eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide need but since another shop i.e. shop no.6 belonging to the landlord had since been vacated by the tenant of the said shop, namely, Kedar Narayan, it was important and necessary that the respondentlandlord should be directed to produce his bank account as well as other receipts issued by the landlord to the Kedar Narayan, in case Kedar Narayan was still the tenant, as stated by the landlord. Reliance was placed on Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC to contend that the court can always direct the party to produce the documents, which are in their possession relating to the matter in question therein.