JUDGMENT

Inderjeet Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that the respondent-landlord has filed the eviction application on the ground of bona fide need and personal necessity for Yashwant Singh who is son of respondent-landlord No.2 for starting the business of general store. Counsel further submits that Yashwant Singh is residing at Jaipur and doing business of jewellery. Counsel further submits that prior to filing of application before the Rent Tribunal, Alwar, he has also filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 before the Income Tax Department to procure the income tax returns of Shri Yashwant Singh but the Income Tax Department refused to provide the same. Therefore, the petitioner-tenant filed the application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 before the learned Rent Tribunal for summoning the income tax returns and bank account of Shri Yashwant Singh. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous as the documents are very much required to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Paras Drugs And Chemical Industries And Others Vs. UCO Bank & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 WLC 191 wherein para No.9 it has been held as under:-

"9. The law is well settled on the subject that if sufficient cause is explained by a party seeking discovery and inspection of the documents, which are in possession and power of the contesting party, the court can. In the interest of justice, in appropriate cases, allow the production of such documents, provided the production is necessary for just decision of the case. This fact is fortified from the observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of Shri M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur , wherein it was observed that "the documents sought to be discovered need not be admissible in evidence in the enquiry or proceedings. It is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. Every document which will throw any light on the case is a document relating to a matter in dispute in the proceedings, though it might not be admissible in evidence. In other words, a document might be inadmissible in evidence yet it may contain information which may either directly or indirectly enable the party seeking discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversary's case or which may lead to a trail of enquiry consequences.

The word 'document' in this context includes anything that is written or printed, on matter what the material may be upon which the writing or printing is inserted or imprinted."

3. Counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal and submitted that the income tax returns and bank accounts are not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as the issue of bona fide necessity has to be proved by the landlord. Counsel further submits that the discretion has been used by the Rent Tribunal in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-tenant and the same is not liable to be disturbed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Gopichand Vs. Jairam Das in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3027/2017 decided on 04.04.2017 wherein it has been held as under:-

"Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 04.02.2017.

Thereby the Rent Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-tenant for calling of Income Tax returns of the respondent- landlord for the purpose of adjudicat