- (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2008, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') applicaiton for taking on record two additional affidavits � that of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan for the purpose of plaintiff's evidence.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed an application for eviction of the rented premises against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 19.09.2003. As required under Section 15 of the Rent control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') the plaintiff submitted affidavits of three witnesses upon whom he sought to rely upon in support of his case. Subsequently, on 19.02.2004, the plaintiff also filed affidavits of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan as his witnesses. On the date of the filing of the affidavits, the counsel for the non-applicants tenants raised an objection with regard to the belated filing of the affidavits contrary to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001. No order however was passed by the Tribunal at the relevent time. Subsequently, on the matter coming up before the Tribunal, vide order dated 30.01.2008, the Rent Tribunal disallowed the aforesaid two additional affidavits from being taken on record primarily on the ground that these two additional affidavits were not accompanyed by a separate application parying that they be taken on record. The Tribunal also noted the failure of the plaintiff to have filed the aforesaid two affidavits in the first instance along with the original application. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 30.01.2008 is an unjust exercise of discretion by the Tribunal inasmuch as no prejudice was being caused to the non-applicants tenant in view of the fact that the aforesaid two additional affidavits were filed within five months of filing of the original application and even before the commencement of the prosecution evidence. It is submitted that no doubt under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, the affidavits ideally ought to have been filed along with the original application, but yet non-filing of the two affidavits along with the original application was not fatal to the petitioner's right to have all his witnesses in support of his case. It is submitted that the Tribunal had sufficient discretion to allow the said affidavits being taken on record more so when the plaintiff's evidence has not even been commenced. Counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have justly and reasonably exercised its discretion and allowed the plaintiff to bring two additional affidavits on record in support of his case as no prejudice would have been caused to the non-applicants tenants as they would have the right to cross-examine the deponents of the two affidavits. The counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 would however submit that the order dated 30.01.2008 is an order passed in a fair exercise of discretion and was wholly within jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is submitted that this Court in the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to interfere with the order dated 30.01.2008 as its neither perverse, nor otherwise vitiated by any law. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition also the impugned order dated 30.01.2008.
(3.) FROM the facts on record it is evident that the two additional affidavits of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan were filed on 19.02.2004 even before the commencement of plaintiff's evidence in support of his case for eviction of the non-applicants tenants. The provisions under Section 15 of the Act of 2001 are not mandatory and leave enough scope for the Presiding Officer to exercise her discretion in allowing a delayed filing of documents in the eviction petition with reference to the facts of the case. In the facts of the instant case, in my considered opinion as the plaintiff's evidence has not even commenced there would have been no prejudice to the non-applicants tenants in the eviction petition, the affidavits in issue should have been taken on record. The ground of the additional affidavits not being accompanied by a formal application with a prayer that they be taken on record was a specious ground and if the Tribunal desired that such an application was required, the plaintiff should have been asked to supply the defect that very day. Proceedings before the Tribunal are not burdened by formal procedure as per the Code of Civil Procedure and are merely required to be complicit with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 30.01.2008 is quashed and set aside. The additional affidavits of Panna Lal and Hari Mohan be taken on record and the non-applicants in the eviction petition be allowed to cross-examine the said witnesses. As the matter pertains to the year 2003, it is directed that the eviction petition filed by the plaintiff be disposed of within a period of six months from the submission of a certified copy of this order. ;