1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7606/07 Anil Swami vs. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr. Date of order : 18/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sudesh Bansal for the petitioner. Shri B.D. Agrawal for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2007 whereby the Rent Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner / tenant by which the petitioner wanted a diary to be produced on record so as to show the payment of rent to the respondent / landlord. Shri Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the diary was not produced earlier, but the petitioner in his cross examination had stated that the parties were having the relationship of mutual trust and faith and that the respondent landlord did not give receipt of the rent paid by the tenant. It was on mutual faith that payment was made, but petitioner was maintaining records of such payment in this diary. It was argued that it is relevant documents to be considered at the time of final disposal. Even if the diary is now allowed to be produced, that itself would not cause any 2 prejudice to the respondent. Shri B.D. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the application has been filed belatedly after the evidence of both the parties has been closed and cross examination of their witnesses has taken place and the matter was fixed for final hearing. It was argued that no mention whatsoever was made of the diary either in the pleadings or otherwise in the evidence including in the cross examination of the petitioner. Learned trial court has therefore rightly declined to permit the production of such diary. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the trial court has declined to permit the diary on record by observing that if at all any such diary was being maintained, the petitioner ought to have mentioned about it in the pleadings or in the affidavits. Learned trial court found that the kind of diary that has been produced can be prepared at any time particularly when it is the diary produced by the petitioner in his own favour. Learned trial court did not believe the version of the petitioner that he came to know about the diary only from the clue which he took from cross examination. In my considered view, the explanation for non-production of diary by the petitioner at the earlier stage is not at 3 all satisfactory and does not inspire confidence. If at all the accounts were being maintained by the petitioner in the said diary, there was no reason for him not to mention about its existence in the pleadings and in the affidavits more particularly when petitioner claims that no receipt was given to him by the landlord. The learned trial court in my view has therefore rightly rejected the application on valid consideration. I do not find any good reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial court. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/