The opportunity for cross-examination is not an absolute right and is subject to the Tribunal's discretion in the interest of justice. Specific and non-ambiguous reasons must be provided for seeking cross-examination.

1. - By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 23.7.2005 in Original Application No. 2/2005, so also the order of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 28.7.2007 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 25/2005, whereby the appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal,Jodhpur by which the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and certificate for eviction against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 3.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that though the plea was taken by him in the written statement filed before the Rent Tribunal against the application filed for eviction on the ground of bone fide personal necessity by the respondent No. 3, in which it was submitted by the petitioner that non-petitioner No. 3 has sufficient accommodation in the city as alternative place to start his clinic, so also the non-petitioner No. 3 admitted the existence of accommodation in the city but stated that the same is insufficient.

3. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal did not provide opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose affidavits were filed by the applicant-respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, therefore, petitioner did not get occasion to prove the measurement of the premises of non-petitioner No. 3 situated in the city and to further prove that said premise is sufficient for him to pursue his business. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error while not providing an opportunity to cross examine respondent No. 3 and his witnesses upon their affidavits. According to petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal also, an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed but the learned appellate Court rejected the same while observing in para No. 14 that the said prayer was not made before the Rent Tribunal so also the averments made in the application filed in appeal are ambiguous, therefore, it is not proper to allow the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses of respondent No. 3.

4. Upon aforesaid rejection, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 21 of the Act of 2001, an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses can be given at the Appellate stage also. Further, it is submitted that it was the duty of the Rent Tribunal to allow cross examination in the interest of justice because the plea was taken by the petitioner in his written statement before the Rent Tribunal that applicant-respondent No. 3 is having an alternative premises where he can pursue his business. But, the learned Rent Tribunal did not provide the opportunity of cross examination, so also when specific application was filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act before the learned Appellate Court, the Appellate Court also dismissed the application on wrong premise. Therefore, both the judgments deserve to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court towards the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.) 431, Aasandas v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and another judgment reported in 2008(1) WLC 47, Ramswaroop v. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. and contended that in the aforesaid cases opportunity of cross examination was allowed and the orders of learned Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal were set aside. Relying on the aforesaid cases, it is submitted that petitioner is entitled to get an opportunity of cross examination and it is prayed that both the judgments impugned may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who have filed their affidavits before the Court.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 3 vehemently argued that concurrent finding of both the Courts below do not require interference by this Court because the petitioner ha