CWP-5440/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5440/2010 Santosh Jain Versus. Vinod Bhardwaj & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 20/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Prashant Choudhary, for petitioner. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing part of the order dated 23/03/2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for summoning the Bank Officer Shri Sohan Lal Verma as a witness has been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal. It appears from the record that suit for eviction was filed by the non-petitioners for personal & bonafide necessity, nuisance and denial of title. After filing written statement, two separate applications were filed by the present petitioner-tenant, first for taking on record certain documents which was allowed and the second for summoning the Bank Officer Shri Sohan Lal Verma as a witness which has been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal. However, while rejecting the application, it has been observed that the petitioner has failed to show as to how the statements of Shri Sohan Lal Verma are in any matter related to the dispute CWP-5440/2010 2 and so far as the rent note and the sanction of loan is concerned, which was alleged by the non-petitioners in their application, it was observed that the same was to be proved by them and burden was upon the non-petitioner-landlord to prove and so far as the documents, which have been taken on record on the application submitted by the petitioner are concerned, the same have to be proved by the present petitioner. It has been further observed that the application summoning Shri Sohan Lal Verma as a witness was filed only for delaying the proceedings and it was not considered appropriate to grant permission sought for. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the order which is impugned in the instant petition and find no manifest error being committed by the Tribunal which may call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.2/ 5440-CW-2010-final.doc