JUDGMENT :

SANGEET LODHA, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 5.12.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Rent Case No. 857/12, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-tenant questioning the admissibility of the documents produced on behalf of the respondent-landlord alongwith his affidavit, has been rejected.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a residential premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent, material alteration, the use of the premises for purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out and reasonable and bona fide requirement. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto.

3. The petition was filed by the respondent on 23.3.12, which was accompanied by affidavits of P.W. 1-Shyamlal Deora and P.W. 2-Kuldeep. The respondent annexed certain documents with the affidavit filed, which were marked as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/17. The petitioner filed reply to the petition alongwith affidavit belatedly on 26.4.13, which was taken on record on payment of cost Rs. 300/-. Vide order dated 25.9.13, the Rent Tribunal permitted the parties to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned time and again for one or another reason.

4. The cross examination of P.W. 1-Shyamlal commenced on 23.1.16, which remained incomplete due to paucity of time. The witness was further cross examined on 12.7.16 but the cross examination could not be completed. The cross examination was resumed on 23.5.17 but was further reserved on the counsel appearing for the petitioner stating that he is not feeling well. Thereafter, further cross examination was recorded on 6.11.17, 13.3.18, 19.5.18 and 18.9.18. At this stage, the petitioner raised objection regarding admissibility of document Ex. P/15, P/16 and Ex. 18 to 22 in evidence, stating that the said documents are not original or the copies thereof duly compared and thus, cannot be permitted to be exhibited in evidence. The application preferred by the petitioner in this regard has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

5. The application has been rejected by the Tribunal observing that the documents Ex. P/15 & P/16 were filed by the respondent alongwith original petition on 19.3.12 and Ex. 18 to 22 were produced alongwith rejoinder on 13.8.13 and thus, if the petitioner had any objection regarding the admissibility of the documents, such objection could have been raised at the stage when the same were tendered in evidence by way of affidavit. The court observed that after cross examination of the respondent on different dates, the objection raised regarding admissibility of the documents in evidence cannot be entertained.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner or his counsel had no knowledge about the said documents being tendered in evidence on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the counsel for the petitioner came to know about the said documents only on 18.9.18 during the cross examination of the respondent P.W. 1-Shyamlal. Learned counsel submitted that when the substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the former has to be preferred over the later and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner only on the ground that objection was raised belatedly, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has never admitted the said documents and thus, the admissibility thereof is permissible to be raised at any stage of the proceedings and thus, viewed from any angle the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner that the petitioner came to know