1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10351/2007 {Smt. Rampyari Versus Newly Constructed Rent Tribunal & Another} Date of Order :: 21st August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. G.D. Parwal for the petitioner Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for the respondent no.2 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Gupta appears for respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant-respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act for eviction of the non applicant-petitioner from the disputed premise on the ground of necessity. The applicant's evidence was complete in the said case and at that stage the applicant filed an application to allow him to produce one allotment letter in respect of house no. 8/89 issued by Housing Board, on record and to permit him to lead secondary evidence in this respect. The trial court has allowed the said application vide 2 order dated 5th November, 2007 which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of non-applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no averments in the main application under Section 9 of the Act about this letter, therefore, without amending the pleading, the present application to take on record the said document and to allow the applicant to lead secondary evidence in this respect was not proper and justified in the eye of law, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in allowing the application by the impugned order, which is liable to be set- aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 contended that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner will be relevant at the time of final hearing of the case and same cannot be considered at this stage. 6. I have considered the submissions of leaned counsel for the parties and also the impugned order. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that without any pleading the document should not have been taken on record and applicant should not have been allowed to lead secondary evidence in this 3 behalf will be relevant at the time of final disposal of the case and in case the said argument is raised, then definitely the Rent Tribunal will consider and decide the same. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK