The right to cross-examine a deponent of an affidavit in evidence is not absolute and the Rent Tribunal has the discretion to refuse permission to cross-examine. The denial of cross-examination must result in prejudice to the applicant.

1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter, the tenant') since deceased and now represented through her legal representatives challenging the order dated 30.1.2010 passed by the Judge Appellate Rent Tribunal Amer (hereinafter the Appellate Tribunal') upholding the order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Judge Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter the Tribunal) directing the tenant's eviction and issuing a certificate of possession in favour of respondent-landlord (hereinafter the landlord' ) since deceased and also new represented through her legal representatives.

2. The facts of the case are that eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner tenant under section 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act') requiring the tenanted premises reasonably and bona fidely for use and occupation of herself and her family and under section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act on the ground of default for non payment of rent for a period of over four months by the tenant in spite of a registered notice dated 17.9.2003 in respect thereof and disclosure of landlord's bank account (01190013096 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) where arrears of rent was to be deposited. Reply of denial to the eviction petition was filed by the tenant. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:

1- vk;k fd fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk iqujhf{kr fdjk;k /kkjk 6 ds vuqlkj D;k gksxk\    & vthZnkj 2- vk;k fd izR;FkhZ us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze dkfjr fd;k gS\    & vthZnkj 3- vk;k fd vthZnkj dks fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dh Lo;a o vius iq=ksa fookfgr iq=h mlds ifr] cPpksa ds vkus ij jgus ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS\    & vthZnkj 4- vk;k fd vthZnkj vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 10 ([k) (x) ds vk/kkj ij fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk rqjUr dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\    & vthZnkj 5- vk;k fd izR;FkhZ us ifjlj esa rksM+QksM+ dj LosPNk fcuk vthZnkj dh vuqefr ds rkfRod ifjorZu dj U;wlsal dkfjr fd;k gS\    & vthZnkj 6- vk;k fd izR;FkhZ us fctyh O;; dh jkf'k dk O;; ugha fn;k gS ftlds dkj.k vthZnkj ds edku esa yxkk fo|qr lEcU/k fo|qr forj.k fuxe vtesj }kjk foPNsn dj fn;k x;k tks U;wlsal dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gS\    & vthZnkj 7- vuqrks"k\

3. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the landlord did not press the issue pertaining to her bona fide and reasonable necessity under section 9 (i) of the 2001 Act and the case was confined and argued on the tenant having committed default in payment of rent under section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act making him liable to be ejected, with the corresponding direction for the issue of certificate of possession in favour of the landlord.

4. On the evidence laid before the Tribunal on the issue of default in payment of rent Rs. 300/- per month, the learned Tribunal found that the notice dated 17.9.2003 as required under second proviso to section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act had been issued by the landlord disclosing her bank account (01190013096 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) in which arrears of rent due for over four months commencing May, 2002 were to be deposited. In spite of the notice aforesaid, arrears of rent due for over four months were not deposited. The learned Tribunal negatived the defence of the tenant that the bank account (0119001396 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) conveyed to the tenant had been closed. For this the Tribunal took into consideration Ex. P- 10 copy of the land-lord's pass-book of account (01190013096 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) indicating the account being operational between 13.3.1999 and 14.12.2004. A plea by the tenant in his written statement to the eviction application for cross examination of the landlord on her affidavit in evidence was raised, which was negatived by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction with reference to facts which obtained in the case . The learned Tribunal found that the tenant was in ar