MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 05.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(Rent Tribunal), Bharatpur (for short 'the Rent Tribunal') whereby application under Order 8, Rule 1 (3) CPC filed by the petitioner for taking the documents/cheques on record has been dismissed. The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner in original application filed by the respondents before the Rent Tribunal seeking eviction of the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was regularly paying the rent to the respondents through cheques and they received the same from their bank account. Therefore, no rent was due, but the respondents did not give any receipt to the petitioner. Said cheques would prove that the petitioner was regularly paying rent to the respondents and it is necessary to take the aforesaid documents/cheques on record. The petitioner earlier filed application under Order 16, Rule 6 CPC before the Rent Tribunal for summoning certified copies of the said cheques from the bank, but the Rent Tribunal dismissed that application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any evidence which shows that the petitioner applied to the bank for obtaining the certified copies of the cheques and the bank denied for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained certified copies of the said cheques from the bank and submitted the same before the Rent Tribunal along with application, but the Rent Tribunal has wrongly dismissed application of the petitioner. It is argued that every party has a right to produce any document in his evidence, which right has been denied by the Rent Tribunal by dismissing the application of the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the aforesaid documents/cheques be ordered to be taken on record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has paid rent of disputed shop till the month of July, 2011 to the respondents and he neither paid any rent to the respondents nor deposited the rent in the bank account of the respondents. As regards alleged cheques, it is submitted that those cheques do not bear names of the respondents and only one cheque bearing No. 152369 dated 18.08.2013 has been issued in the name of Respondent No. 1, which has not been encashed by the respondents. The aforesaid documents/cheques are not relevant or necessary for adjudication of the dispute and on the subject of the aforesaid cheques, the cross-examination has already been done by the petitioner side. It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed.;