LODHA, J. - (1.) IN the application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, `act of 2001') by the present respondents No. 1 to 8 (collectively for short, `the landlord') against the appellant (for short, `the tenant'), the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer on 8. 12. 2004 passed an order of eviction against the tenant. The tenant challenged the order dated 8. 12. 2004 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer. However that appeal was dismissed on 21. 9. 2006. The tenant then filed a writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 8. 12. 2004 and the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer dated 21. 9. 2006. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the Single Judge on 18. 12. 2006 and hence the appeal by the tenant.
(2.) THE landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, material alteration and change of user. According to the landlord the premises let out to the tenant were required for the purposes of the go-down since in the adjacent premises the landlord carries on business in the name of Amar Tent House. THE landlord also alleged that the tenant without their permission, constructed a pacca latrine and bathroom on the chabotara outside the rented premises. THE landlord also alleged that though the subject premises were let out to the tenant for residence, in breach thereof, he was started shoe shop. Alongwith the application for eviction filed by the landlord under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, the landlord filed affidavits of charanjeet Singh (PW. 1), Smt. Shanti Devi (PW. 2), Sohan Singh (PW. 3) and Gurudayal Singh (PW. 4 ). The landlord also relied upon eleven documents, details of which were given in paragraph 12 of the application. The tenant traversed the landlord's claim for eviction and denied that the subject premises were required by the landlord for their personal occupation. The tenant stated in the reply that earlier in the year 1997, the erstwhile owner filed a suit for eviction being Civil Suit No. 27/1997 on the ground of bonafide necessity which was dismissed as abated. The tenant denied that he altered the premises materially. According to him the latrine and bathroom had been in existence on the Chabootara in the tin-shed right from inception. The tenant denied that the premises were taken for residential purposes. According to him, premises were taken by him on rent for the purposes of residence as well as for his business and that he has been carrying on business in the rented premises right from inception. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal struck the following issues: *********** The tenant made an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 for permitting him to cross examine the deponents, PW 1 to PW 4 who had filed their affidavits in support of landlord's claim for eviction. In the application it was stated that the affidavits are not truthful and to enable the Tribunal to know the correct facts, the cross-examination of the deponents was necessary.
(3.) THE Rent Tribunal by its order dated 8. 4. 2004 permitted cross examination of the dependents only with regard to issue No. 5. No cross examination was permitted in respect of issues No. 1 to 4. As noticed above, the Tribunal on 8. 12. 2004 passed an order of eviction which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 21. 9. 2006. The issue that needs to be considered in this appeal is whether the order of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Rent Tribunal suffers from infraction of the principles of natural justice because of denial of cross-examination of the land-lord's witnesses on issues No. 1 to 4 despite prayer to that effect was made by the tenant. ;