// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7974/2007 Sitaram Jangid S/o Shri Rudmal Jangid Versus The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur through the Presiding Officer and Another Date of Order ::: 12.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ashok Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Satish Khandal, Counsel for the respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri Satish Khandal, Advocate, appears for the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The landlord-respondent No.1 filed an application before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, for eviction of tenant-petitioner from the rented premises. During the pendency of that application, the tenant-petitioner filed an application in the Rent Tribunal stating therein that cross-examination of DW-1 is complete and now he wants to produce and examine Smt. Santosh Sharma on the plea of // 2 // availability of alternative accommodation. His case is that alternative accommodation, as contended by the applicant, is not available with him as the said accommodation had already been sold to Smt. Santosh Sharma prior to initiation of eviction proceedings, therefore, he may be permitted to examine Smt. Santosh. The application was opposed by the landlord- respondent No.1 on the ground that such a plea has not been taken by him in the written- statement, therefore, the tenant-petitioner cannot be allowed to examine Smt. Santosh Sharma. The trial court, vide its order dated 5th September, 2007 rejected the application. Being aggrieved with the same, the tenant- petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner contended that the approach of the learned Rent Tribunal in rejecting the application is absolutely illegal. He has referred Para 9(7) of the written-statement wherein he has taken the plea that he does not have suitable alternative accommodation. The allegation of the landlord-respondent regarding availability of one shop - Santosh Denting Painting, is not correct. He, therefore, contended that he may be granted one more last opportunity to examine Smt. Santosh Sharma in // 3 // support of his case and he will not seek any further adjournment in this regard. He further contended that so far as delay of proceedings is concerned, the landlord-respondent No.2 can be compensated by way of costs. The learned counsel for the landlord- respondent defended the impugned order and contended that the present application has been filed only in order to delay the proceedings otherwise there was no necessity of examination of Smt. Santosh Sharma on behalf of the tenant- petitioner. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 5th September, 2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal and, after considering the same, I find that although a specific plea was not taken by the tenant- petitioner in the written-statement but there is reference of one shop - Santosh Denting and Painting in Para 9 (7) of the written-statement and, in these circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet in case one more last opportunity is granted to the tenant- petitioner to examine Smt. Santosh Sharma at his own on payment of costs. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th September, // 4 // 2007 is set-aside. The tenant-petitioner Sita Ram Jangid is permitted to examine Smt. Santosh Sharma before the Rent Tribunal at his own, on 28th or 29th of August, 2008, whichever date is suitable to the Rent Tribunal on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand), which will be paid to the landlord-respondent on or before the aforesaid date, failing which the aforesaid witness will not be allowed to be examined. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//