1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2010 of Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the counter to rejoinder filed by the petitioner/tenant has been refused to be taken on record.

2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity in terms of Section 9(1) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act"). The application is being contested by the petitioner/tenant by filing a reply thereto. The respondent/landlord filed rejoinder to the reply along with an additional affidavit. According to the petitioner/tenant, the rejoinder filed contains new facts and grounds and therefore, the same was required to be controverted and therefore, he filed a counter to the rejoinder alongwith an affidavit. However, the rent Tribunal has refused to take the same on record observing that no new ground has been incorporated in the rejoinder filed. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the rejoinder filed by the respondent/landlord, it is apparent that it contains new facts and grounds and therefore, in the interest of justice, the Rent Tribunal should have taken the counter filed by the petitioner on record. Drawing the attention of this Court to para No. 6 of the rejoinder, learned counsel submitted that the respondent/landlord has taken the stand that the premises in question is lying vacant and the same is not being used by the petitioner/tenant and therefore, though the ground of non user of the premises is not taken in the petition filed, but so as to assess the comparative hardship, these facts are relevant and therefore, atleast to this extent, the rent Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner to file a counter to the rejoinder.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that in terms of Section 9(i) of the Act, the Court is not required to assess the comparative hardship and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/landlord has set out any new case by way of rejoinder and therefore, order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings of the parties placed on record.

6. In Surendra Mehta v. Bapu Lai, 2008(1) DNJ (Raj.) 501 , after due consideration of the provisions of Sections 15 and 21 of the Act of 2001, this Court opined:

"11. The learned Tribunal has also erred in holding that since there is no provision permitting filing of the counter to the rejoinder, therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to file reply to the rejoinder. It is true that in sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, permits filing of the rejoinder but there is no specific provision for permitting any subsequent pleadings thereafter. However, sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 specifically provides that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provision of the Act or rules made thereunder and shall have power to regulate their own procedure and for the purposes of discharging their function under the Act, they shall have same powers as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by trying the suit or appeal in respect of matters specifically enumerated and any other matter as may be prescribed. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the principle underlying the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. may not be made applicable to the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2001. That apart, the procedure provided for the trial of the suit and misc. proceedings are meant for finding out of truth and impart the justice between the parties. Needless to say that the procedure