The right of cross-examination is a valuable right which should ordinarily be permitted unless strong reasons are given to deny the same.

1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur. By the aforesaid orders, application for eviction of the tenant was allowed.

2. An application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short `the Act of 2001') for eviction was filed by the non-petitioner/applicant on the ground of necessity of shop for the plaintiff's son and for the plaintiff himself. In the said application, allegation of default in making payment of rent and availability of alternative shop to the defendant were also made, but not pressed. After exchange of the pleadings, the parties submitted their affidavits. Petitioner moved an application to seek permission to cross-examine applicant's witnesses. The prayer made therein was not accepted by the Rent Tribunal, however, it was observed that if necessity arises to permit the cross-examination, order would be passed at the time of final hearing.

3. The Rent Tribunal allowed the application for eviction vide its order dated 12.8.04. The order of eviction was passed on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff and at the same time, necessity of applicant's son was not accepted. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Tribunal, both landlord and tenant filed appeals before the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The Rent Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the parties.

4. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition to challenge the orders of Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal mainly on the ground that issue of plaintiff's personal necessity has wrongly been decided because plaintiff is at the age of 80 years and otherwise retired almost more than 20 years back, thus he cannot have personal bonafide necessity of shop in dispute. The other ground raised is that petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine applicant's witnesses and an application moved in that regard was not decided while the final argument was made. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it is stated that orders of Rent Tribunal as well as Rent Appellate Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside more so when petitioner made a request to permit him to cross-examine applicant's witnesses even while appeal was pending consideration.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that cross-examination is a valuable right of the parties which otherwise cannot be denied unless there is sufficient reason. Referring to the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, it has been projected that rejection of the prayer for cross-examination should be an exception. Referring to the judgment in case of Ramswaroop v. Charanjeet Singh & Ors., 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 47 , it has submitted that same issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench wherein it was held that to follow the principles of natural justice, cross-examination should be permitted by the Tribunal other than in exceptional circumstances, thereby permission of cross-examination should be a rule and denial to be an exception. It is urged that same view was taken in other cases also. In that regard, a reference of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Tek Chand v. State & Ors., 2005(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1346 has been given apart from the reference of the judgment in the case of Aasandas v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.) 431 . Thus, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunals below.

6. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is a case where concurrent finding of fact regarding personal necessity of the plaintiff exists, thus while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere In finding of facts. It is submitted that issue of personal necessity of plaintiff was well considered and decided by the Tribunal without perversity, hence, a challenge to the concurrent