Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.— This writ petition has been filed by tenant-petitioner challenging order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the Application No. 69/2009 filed by tenant-petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for shot, `the CPC') for summoning certain documents, has been dismissed. The tenant-petitioner, in the aforesaid application, prayed for a direction to landlord-respondents to produce on record rent-notes of other three shops, which they have let out to different persons, to enable him to show as to when such shops were left out and whether the shops were let out after filing of the eviction petition. The Rent Tribunal rejected the application on the premise that plea of personal bona-fide necessity has to be proved by landlord and therefore, summoning of those documents would not be said to be necessary.

2. Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, learned counsel for tenant-petitioner, assailed the correctness of the impugned order and argued that the Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate that landlord-respondents themselves have set up the plea of personal bona-fide necessity. At the same time, the landlord-respondent-Dharamchand Jain admitted in his cross-examination before the Rent Tribunal that he had let out three other shops about two years and three months ago. His statement was recorded on 27.9.2011 and that would mean that the shops were let out soon after filing of eviction petition and the eviction petition was filed on 25.11.2009. Summoning of the rent-notes is necessary to establish that personal necessity of the landlord-respondent was neither bona-fide nor genuine. The rent-notes were the best evidence to prove the case of tenant-petitioner that shops were in fact let out by landlord-respondents after filing of the eviction petition and that even though the landlord-respondents had three other shops, yet they chose not to make use of them for their personal necessity and have filed eviction petition against tenant-petitioner. According to tenant-petitioner, the need of landlord-respondents in this situation, would neither be a bona-fide nor genuine.

3. Shri Mohit Gupta, learned counsel for land-lord-respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the landlord-respondent has not only admitted in his cross-examination that he let out the shops about two years and three months before recording of his statement but in the reply to the application filed by tenant-petitioner under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, he admitted the fact that the shops were let out by him prior to filing of the eviction petition. The Rent Tribunal has thus rightly rejected the application of the tenant-petitioner filed under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC. The Rent Tribunal also held that burden of proving the persona bona-fide necessity is on the landlord-respondent and therefore summoning of the rent notes may not be necessary.

4. In the scheme of the CPC, the legislature has purposely provided in Order XI Rule 12 of the CPC as a stage where any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. The court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion, be thought fit.

5. The purpose of discovery of documents with reference to Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of the CPC is to provide the parties with the relevant documentary material before the trial so as to assist them in appraising the strength or weakness of their respective cases, and thus to provide the basis for the fair disposal of the proceedings before or at the trial. Each party is thereby enabled to use before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document