NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) All the above mentioned writ petitions are decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
(2.) The respondent/non-applicant filed a petition under Sections 9, 18 and 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The petitioner-tenant filed his reply denying that the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 2,500/- per month and came with the case that the shop in dispute was taken on rent @ Rs. 5/- per month 60 years ago and the present rent was @ Rs. 95/- per month. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with section 151 of stating that the entries regarding the receipt of the rent were taken away by the respondent-landlord and the same were lying in his power and possession, and therefore, sought direction for production of the same. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 04/07/2017. Thereafter, another application was moved under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act stating that the note book of the co-tenant in which entries regarding receipt of rent were made by the respondent-landlord was taken by him in the name of making entries which he did not return back, and therefore, sought permission to produce the photocopies of the entries made by the petitioner-tenant himself in his registers with respect to the payment of rent as secondary evidence. However, said application was also dismissed vide order dated 03/10/2017 which is impugned herein.
(3.) While praying for setting aside the impugned order as also seeking permission to produce the said entry in the Register as secondary evidence, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Nawab Singh v. Inderjit Kaur, 1999 (3) Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C.) .;