- (1.) CHALLENGE has been made in this writ petition to the order dated 15th November, 2011, whereby the learned Judge, Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan has dismissed the application with regard to re-opening the landlord's cross-examination as filed by the petitioner herein, who is the tenant in the Original Application filed by the landlord (respondent no.1 herein) under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition including the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 15th November, 2011 indicates that on 4th July, 2011, the case was fixed for cross examination of the landlord before the trial court but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared in the court till 3:00 pm, as a result of which, the Tribunal closed the right of cross examination of the landlord by the petitioner (tenant) and case was adjourned to 30th August, 2011 for recording the tenant's evidence in defence. On 30th August, 2011 the cross examination of the tenant was completed. Thereafter, the case was fixed for final hearing on 12th October, 2011. On 12th October, 2011, the counsel for the petitioner (tenant) sought time to argue the case and the Tribunal adjourned the case to 15th November, 2011. On 15th November, 2011, the petitioner's counsel moved an application for re-opening cross-examination of the landlord, earlier closed on 4th July, 2011. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the case was pending at the stage of final hearing and appeared to have been filed belatedly as an afterthought. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner as defendant in the eviction petition be granted one last opportunity to cross examine the landlord-the respondent herein in the interest of justice. In my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal correctly closed the right of cross-examination of the landlord in the context of the petitioner-tenant's effort to delay the trial of the case. The impugned order rendered by the learned Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid and which needs no intervention in the present writ petition. From the record of the petition, it is evident that the application for re-opening the cross-examination of the landlord was filed belatedly after the tenant-petitioner herein, had already led his evidence. Evidently to move such an application at the stage of final argument was indicative of the petitioner's desire to delay the trial and if the petitioner as tenant was serious about cross-examining the landlord on the landlord's affidavit in evidence, he would have moved an application for re-opening the cross-examination immediately following the closure thereof on 4th July, 2011. It is also relevant to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in a plethora of cases that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be perverse, vitiated by misdirection in law or it results in manifest injustice. The instant case is not covered by the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(3.) IN view of above, the writ petition stands dismissed.;