Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2011. The only contention that has been advanced in assailing the aforesaid judgment of the Rent Appellate Tribunal for the time being is that petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC placing on record copy of the dealership agreement between M/s. Keval Prakash Petrol Company of which the respondent was also one of the partners. It was contended in the application that this dealership agreement could not be earlier produced despite exercise of due diligence, but this is a document which would go to the root of the case and would have an important bearing and would enable the Court to reach to the just and correct decision. The application was contested by the respondent by filing reply thereto in which objection was taken that this application may be decided as and when the main appeal is decided. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 3.3.2011 accepted the objection raised by the respondent and held that the said application shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the main appeal. When the main appeal was decided, the Rent Appellate Tribunal did not decide the application. Thus, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 remained undecided and the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jatinder Singh & Anr. vs. Mehar Singh & Ors., : (2009) 17 SCC 465 and Harju & Ors. vs. Phulari & Ors.,, (2005) 10 SCC 191. Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that existence of dealership agreement was known to the petitioner right at the time when they filed reply. The only intention of producing the dealership agreement belatedly was to delay the proceedings. The Rent Appellate Tribunal on 3.3.2011 deferred the matter to be heard along with the main appeal on 7.4.2011 on which date the request for adjournment was made by the counsel for the petitioner, therefore, if the appeal is decided subsequently without deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27, that would not affect the merits of the case. It was alternatively argued that this Court even at this stage examine the aforesaid document to ascertain as to what is the effect of dealership agreement. It is also argued that provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. He relied on the judgment of division bench of this Court in Ramswaroop vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors., : 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 47.
(2.) THE Supreme Court in Jatinder Singh & Anr., supra in somewhat similar circumstances held that the High Court should have decided application under Order 41 Rule 27 for introduction of additional evidence before deciding the main appeal and for that purpose remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on that application by setting aside the impugned order. In Harju & Ors., supra also similarly the High Court decided the second appeal without deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and it was held that the High Court should have disposed of the said application either by rejecting it or allowing it before deciding the main appeal. The matter was remanded to High Court solely for the purpose of considering the application. If the application is allowed, the High Court was directed to reconsider the appeal on merits. The division bench of this Court in Ramswaroop, supra while considering the right of cross examination of the parties under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 held that though the Rent Tribunal or for that matter, the Appellate Rent Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure as specifically mentioned in Sec. 21(3) of the Act, however, procedure followed by the Tribunal in every case before it has to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice and must be guided by it, therefore, it was held that discretion given to the Rent Tribunal or for that matter to the Appellate Rent Tribunal in calling a witness for examination or cross examination under Sec. 21(1) of the Act, is a judicial discretion and has to be founded on good reasons. Cross examination is a valuable right, in the context of principles of natural justice, given to a party against whom a particular evidence is set up and if prayed for, must not be denied ordinarily unless such prayer is found to have been made to unnecessarily delay the proceedings or is seen to be actuated with motive. The same principle should apply in the present case if the petitioner has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the Appellate Rent Tribunal has itself ordered on 3.3.2011 to decide such application if and when the main appeal is taken for final disposal on 25.11.2011 and on that day it has not decided the application and yet decided the appeal. This cannot be said to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
(3.) HAVING so held, I find that the matter requires to be remitted for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. With that direction, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. If eventually, the application is allowed, the Tribunal shall re -consider the main appeal itself on merits and decide the same within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before it. With that direction, the writ petition is allowed.;