1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6851/2008 {Ram Sahai Versus Smt. Shanti Devi & Another} Date of Order :: 23rd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sriram Yadav for the petitioner Mr. B.C. Jain for the respondent no.1-caveator BY THE COURT: Mr. B.C. Jain, appears as caveator on behalf of the respondent no.1 who is the contesting party. 2. Admit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The plaintiff – respondent no.1 filed an application under the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction and revision of rent in respect of rented premise. The applicant closed her evidence on 29th February, 2008 and thereafter the case was fixed for non applicant's evidence. The case was thereafter fixed again for the said purpose on 25th March, 2008, 15th April, 2008, 15th May, 2008 and again on 1st July, 2008. The petitioner-non applicant failed to produce his evidence, therefore, Tribunal closed the evidence of non-applicant 2 and fixed the case for final arguments. The said order closing the evidence is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the non applicant. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that applicant closed her evidence only on 29th February, 2008 and thereafter the case was fixed on 25th March, 2008. On that day, the Presiding Officer was transferred. The case was thereafter fixed on 15th April, 2008 and a copy of medical prescription was also produced on record. The case was thereafter fixed on 15th May, 2008, but on that day the work was suspended by the advocates, therefore, case was fixed on 1st July, 2008, therefore, in fact it was only the first day for producing the evidence, therefore, in the interest of justice one last opportunity may be granted to the non applicant – petitioner to adduce his evidence, otherwise it will cause irreparable injury as it is an application for eviction from the rented premise. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the writ petition and contended that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner for adducing his evidence, but he failed to do so. He further contended that the 3 application for eviction under new Rent Control Act is decided in summary manner and four opportunity to lead evidence was sufficient, therefore, no interference should be made in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 1st July, 2008 and also the order sheets of the Tribunal from 29th February, 2008 to 15th May, 2008. It is correct that the proceedings before Rent Tribunal are decided in a summary manner and as per the provisions of the Act of 2001, the application is normally to be decided within a period of 240 days, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in closing the evidence, but after considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, I think it fit and proper in the interest of justice to allow one more opportunity to non applicant – petitioner to adduce his evidence on a particulate date to be fixed by this Court on payment of cost. 8. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The non applicant-petitioner is permitted to adduce his evidence at his own on 11th & 12th August, 2008 in the Tribunal on payment of cost of Rs. 3000/-, failing which 4 the Tribunal shall not allow the petitioner to lead his evidence. 9. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK