The court has the power to reject applications that are an abuse of process or that are intended to delay proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 5.8.19 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Rent Case No.398/12 (old No.167/09), dismissing an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") to summon the witnesses and documents.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondent preferred a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner herein from a residential premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable & bona fide requirement in terms of provisions of Section 9 (a) and 9(i) of the Act respectively. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The evidence of the parties stands concluded and the matter is posted for final arguments. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application to summon the Stamp Reporter from whom the stamp used for execution of the agreement was purchased as also the person, who had purchased the stamp on behalf of the petitioner, for examination. That apart, the petitioner also prayed for summoning the record of the SBI pertaining to the loan obtained by the petitioner on the disputed premises. The petitioner also prayed for summoning the respondent for re-examination. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned with costs Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses and the documents as prayed for. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the agreement reveals that the stamp was purchased from the vendor Mahesh and purchaser of the said stamp is disclosed as Vikas, who are known to the petitioner, which stands fortified from the cross examination of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that to ascertain the genuineness of the stamp purchased and the document executed, it is necessary to summon the said witnesses for examination. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had taken loan on the disputed premises from SBI and did not deposit the installments, which indicates that the respondent has bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded and thus, to prove the said fact, the documents need to be summoned from the SBI.

4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had earlier preferred an application to summon the stamp vendor Mahesh for examination which was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 23.10.18 with costs Rs.1,000/-. Similarly, the application preferred by the petitioner for summoning the original agreement dated 5.5.08 from the respondent was also dismissed by the Rent Tribunal. Yet another application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC was also dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 17.3.18 observing that whether the loan is obtained by the petitioner on the disputed premises or not, is not a question necessary to be gone into by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the petition seeking eviction. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has indulged in filing one after another application just to delay the proceedings and for this reason, the application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal with costs Rs.5,000/- and thus, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. Indisputably, the eviction of the petitioner is sought by the respondent on the ground of default and bona fide requirement. It is matter of record that factum of execution of the rent agreement dated 5.5.08 was specifically denied by the re