Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 7.1.2009 dismissing the application of the petitioner by which the rejoinder and certain documents filed by the respondent -landlord therewith have been objected to and a prayer was made by the petitioner -tenant that the rejoinder and the facts pleaded therein which are outside the scope of the main eviction petition should be taken off/removed from the record. Shri Babu Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of this Court in Surendra Mehta vs. Bapu Lal & Anr., : 2008 (2) RLW 1448 (Raj.) in support of his arguments.
(2.) SHRI Keshav Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that nothing has been pleaded in the reply which is outside the main eviction petition and no part of affidavit in support of the petition contains any stipulation which is outside the scope of the main petition. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in Anop Chand vs. Nand Kishore & Ors.,, 2008 (1) RLW 796 (Raj.). Perusal of the impugned order reveals that an application was filed by the petitioner objecting to filing of rejoinder, additional affidavit and additional documents filed by the landlord wherein the learned Rent Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court in Anop Chand, supra has held that the rejoinder, additional affidavit and documents can be filed. This Court in Surendra Mehta, supra has held that by virtue of Sec. 15(4) of the Rent Control Act, the applicant in an eviction application is entitled to file rejoinder which shall be confined to new pleas or facts introduced by non -applicant in his reply. It is only to rebut and refute the pleas set up in the reply, which contain new pleas and facts outside the scope of the main petition. It was held that respondent tried to introduce new facts and tried to set up a new case and to that extent the rejoinder was held liable to be excluded.
(3.) WHAT was held in Anop Chand, supra was that an occasion to file rejoinder would arise essentially when some new averments or plea taken in reply by tenant calls for its replication from the applicant -landlord. It was held that interpretation of the petitioner would only lead to absurd result. Sec. 15(4) does not contain any prohibition in filing any additional affidavits and documents with rejoinder, but the Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and has wide powers to regulate its procedure and to call any witness as per Sec. 21. It was held that Tribunal cannot be said to be devoid of power to permit filing of additional affidavit or documents after filing petition or reply.;