ALOK SHARMA, J. - (1.) Under challenge is the judgment dated 23.07.2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer as affirmed vide judgment dated 21.02.2007 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer holding that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter 'landlord') was entitled to a certificate of possession of the tenanted premises and the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter 'tenant') correspondingly to a direction of eviction on the ground of the landlord's bona fide and reasonable necessity.
(2.) The argument of Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Parminder Dadhich appearing for the tenant is that despite an application for the cross-examination of the landlord and his sons on their affidavits in evidence supporting the bona fide and reasonable necessity propagated in the eviction petition, the said opportunity was denied in breach of the principles of natural justice. Mr. M.M. Ranjan submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aasandas v. State of Rajasthan and Others [RLW (2005) 2 Raj. 1281 has held that refusal of the right to cross-examine of the affiant's in proceedings before the Rent Tribunal should be exceptional and ordinarily where question/s of fact in issue depends upon oral testimony of the witnesses bringing their evidence on record by way of affidavit/s in evidence, on application for cross-examination they should be allowed to be cross-examined. Mr. Ranjan, in this view of the matter submitted that the refusal of the Rent Tribunal as also by the Appellate Rent Tribunal to cross-examine of landlord and his son on their affidavit on the question of fact about the bona fide and reasonable necessity was a clear procedural irregularity and denial of principles of natural justice going to the root of the impugned judgment and rendering it unsustainable and vitiated for failure to exercise jurisdiction where the facts mandated its exercise for the applicant tenant's benefit. He submitted that the impugned judgments therefore deserve to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone.
(3.) Mr. U.M. Jain, counsel for the landlord is not in a position to controvert the fact that despite an application for cross-examination of the landlord and his son on their affidavits on the question of bona fide and reasonable necessity propagated in the eviction petition, the opportunity was denied. He is also not in a position to cite any judgment contrary to the law enunciated by this court in the case of Aasandas v. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra).;