The obligation to submit all evidence upfront in eviction proceedings is crucial, and late submissions without compelling justification are not permitted.

Order :

1. This writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sikar (for brevity, ‘learned Rent Tribunal’) in Rent Application No.18/2011 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/non- applicant (for brevity, ‘non-applicant’) for taking on record an affidavit of Shri Srichand, has been rejected.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/applicant (for brevity, ‘applicant’) filed an Original Application against the non- applicant under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, ‘Act of 2001’) seeking his eviction on the grounds of non-user for a period of preceding six months, material alteration as also reasonable and bona fide necessity. The non-applicant, in his reply, denying the averments made in the Original Application as to the grounds of eviction, submitted affidavits of himself as NAW-1 and that of Shri Ramavatar as NAW-2. During the course of trial, the non- applicant filed an application seeking leave of the learned Rent Tribunal to produce an affidavit of Shri Srichand as NAW-3. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 26.03.2014.

3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate that to prove his defence, the production of Shri Srichand in the witness box as NAW-3 was necessary. Inviting attention of this Court towards the order-sheet of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 20.11.2012, he submits that after cross examination of his witnesses NAW-1 and NAW-2 was over, he had requested to produce one more witness pursuant whereof, he had filed the subject application which has been rejected. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 26.03.2014 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him seeking leave of the learned Rent Tribunal to produce affidavit of Shri Srichand be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. While dismissing the application, the learned Rent Tribunal has, delineating the scheme of the Act of 2001, submitted that it was obligatory upon the non-applicant to submit affidavits and documents of his witnesses alongwith the reply and he has already examined the witnesses whose affidavits he had submitted alongwith the reply. It was further observed that evidence of the applicant was already over. However, this Court finds that not only evidence of the applicant was over; but, by the time the non-applicant filed the subject application, cross examination of both his witnesses whose affidavits were filed alongwith the reply, was also over.

7. Further, Section 15 of the Act of 2001 requires the applicant to submit affidavits and documents alongwith the memo of Original Application and the non-applicant to submit the affidavits and documents, if any on which he relies, alongwith the reply. This Court has gone through the application dated 18.12.2012 filed by the non- applicant seeking leave of the learned Rent Tribunal to submit an affidavit of another witness; but, does not find any reason as to why his affidavit could not be produced alongwith the reply except a bald averment that it was on account of a mistake which is not convicing. This Court is further not satisfied from the contents of the application that it contains any plausible explanation as to why the new witness should be permitted to be introduced at this stage.

8. This Court finds no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicant that after completion of his witnesses, he had requested to produce one more witness. It is nowhere reflected from the order-sheet dated 20.11.2012 or otherwise that his request was acceded to.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason