ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Under challenge is the order dated 19-12-2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitioners-non-applicants' (hereinafter 'the non-applicants') application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 and section 30(b) CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001').
(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent-applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant'), claiming to be the tenant of the non-applicants purportedly his landlords, filed a suit for permanent injunction resorting to Section 18 of the Act of 2001 stating that he was a duly inducted tenant of the non-applicants. It was stated that yet the non-applicants were seeking to dispossess him without due process of law and hence permanent injunction be granted restraining the landlords from dispossessing him except with the due process of law. The non-applicants denied any relationship of landlord-tenant with the applicant.
(3.) In the course of proceedings in the applicant's suit-one basically for injunction, an application was moved by the non-applicants purporting to be one under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 and section 30(b) CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking to summon the details of telephone connections i.e. 35846, 34191 and 35222 in the disputed shop of which the applicant claimed tenancy as also the details of bank account of one Mahesh Hardware running its business from the premises in dispute of which the applicant claimed to be proprietor. It was the non-applicants' case that the aforesaid telephone connections were not situate in the shop in dispute nor in fact the applicant had any concern whatsoever with the Mahesh Hardware as would be established in the event the records of the telephone numbers 35846, 34191 and 35222 were called from the telephone department and details of account of the firm Mahes Hardware called by the court from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jhunjhunu. The Rent Tribunal's intervention was sought as the non-applicants had no access to the aforesaid evidence central to their defence.;