CW 927/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.927/2010 Manish Ganediwal Versus M/s Chakreshwari Construction Co. (P) Ltd & Anr Date of Order ::: 26/10/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RP Garg, for petitioner Mr. Saransh Saini for respondent-1. Instant petition is directed against orders dt.16/09/2008 of the Rent Tribunal and dt.15/12/2009 of Appellate Rent Appellate Tribunal Jaipur whereby applications filed by petitioner for taking documents on record and for summoning the record have been rejected. As alleged, respondent-1 (M/s Chakreshwari Constructions (P) Ltd through its Director Nem Prakash Khandaka filed original application seeking eviction of petitioner from rented premises on the ground of default in payment of the rent. After written statement was filed, the matter was fixed for recording of plaintiff's evidence; at this stage, applications were filed by petitioner (1) dt.14/07/2008 (Ann.R1/4) for taking six documents on record including certified copies of other suit proceedings filed by Padam Prakash Khandaka; and other applications dt.16/09/2008 (Ann.R1/4) for summoning the file of Case NO.385/2004 filed by respondent-1 besides notice served by Padam Prakash CW 927/10 //2// Khandaka; and for taking on record certified copies obtained from case Nos.111/02 & 682/06; but all the applications were rejected vide orders impugned passed by Rent Tribunal & Rent Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for petitioner submits that documents/record sought by petitioner to be summoned are relevant for proper adjudication of the controversy raised in the original application seeking eviction which goes to the root of the matter, itself and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that documents referred to in the applications filed by petitioner are irrelevant being not related to the controversy raised in the original application seeking eviction of petitioner is totally erroneous and perverse which requires interference by this Court. Per contra, Counsel for respondent-1 (landlord) has filed reply to the instant petition alongwith documents which according to him show that Nem Prakash Khandaka has filed Certificate of Incorporation (Ann.R1/1) as per which, Nem Prakash Khandaka & Padam Prakash were Director of respondent-1 (Company); however, Padam Prakash resigned from Directorship of respondent-1 (Company) on or after 30/06/96 as is evident from Form No.32 (Ann.R1/3 & 4) issued by Registrar of Companies U/s 303(2) of the Companies Act, CW 927/10 //3// 1956. Counsel further submits that the rented shop was let out on 01/11/1998 much after Padam Prakash had resigned on 30/06/1996 and since then he is no more Director of respondent-1 company and it is their internal dispute between the brothers pending adjudication but has no relevancy in examining the controversy raised in original application filed by respondent-1 (Co.) seeking eviction of petitioner on the ground of default in payment of the rent. Taking note of relevancy of documents/record sought by petitioner to be taken on record/summoned, the learned Rent Tribunal recorded a finding that these are not even remotely concerned & relevant for adjudication of the dispute which has to be examined in present original application seeking eviction of petitioner. This Court has gone through the orders impugned and does not find any manifest error being committed which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 927CW2010Oct26Ds.doc