The main legal point established is that the Rent Controlling Authority must properly exercise its jurisdiction and ensure that parties are given a fair deal, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15-4-1993 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore. Passed in Misc. Case No. A 90 (7) 28/92, whereby the applicant-tenant's prayer for framing of additional issues and also of his right of cross examination of one witness Kasturibai have been refused.

( 2 ) BRIEF history of the case is that non-applicant landlord filed a suit before the Rent Controlling Authority, with an assertion that he bonafide requires the suit accommodation for his own residence. This contention of the landlord was refuted by the applicant-tenant. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence on 15-4-1993.

( 3 ) THE tenant (applicant here) filed an application under O. 14, R. 5 of the C. P. C. for framing of Additional Issues. Additional issues were framed. However, it was not in the words as desired by the tenant. Thereafter the landlord who himself appeared as a witness was examined, Kasturibai, who is said to be the original landlord was also examined. Learned counsel for the tenant-applicant wanted time for cross-examination. That was refused, so far as cross-exam. of Kasturibai is concerned, as she is an old lady and was coming from Bhopal. However plaintiff's cross-examination was postponed. Hence this revision.

( 4 ) FIRST contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is two-fold. Firstly, there is dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant. That cannot be decided by the revenue court; and specific issue on that point has not been framed and thereby the learned Rent Controlling Authority has not exercised jurisdiction vested in him. Second contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that by depriving him of the right of cross-examination, a valuable right has been taken away, that is likely to prejudice the case of tenant (applicant ).

( 5 ) CONTENTION for the non-applicant is that plaintiff-is a transferee from Smt. Kasturibai, who is related to him as mother-in-law and has donated the property by a registered gift-deed. That document has been produced in the court. He has further filed copies of the document and letters, whereby the tenant-applicant has accepted him to be the tenant and paid the rent. Thus there has been attornment.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has relied on a case reported in AIR SC (sic) 547 in support of his contentions.

( 7 ) THOUGH it is true that serious question of title cannot be decided by the Revenue Court and where basic relationship of landlord and tenant has been challenged, the same ought to be decided by the Civil Court; but where a person has accepted other party as landlord by attornment an by payment of rent, and does not claim title in himself, such question may be decided by the Authority as they do not involve serious questions of title.

( 8 ) IN this case various letters of tenant accepting the plaintiff as landlord have been produced and they have not been challenged. Then there is a pleading regarding payment of rent and in such a situation, if the Rent Controlling Authority has framed an issue that whether the relationship of landlord and tenant continues between the parties, it cannot be said that he has not exercised jurisdiction vested in him.

( 9 ) NOW, so far as the right of cross-examination is concerned, every party has to be given a fair deal in this matter though it is admitted that Smt. Kasturibai is an old lady, and comes from Bhopal and that was first date of recording evidence. The learned Rent Controlling Authority instead of depriving the tenant of the right of cross-examination could afford an opportunity to tenant by adjourning the case on payment of cost and expenses, which is sufficient for bringing Kasturibai by a car or in higher class compartment of a train. Instead of doing that, he deprived the tenant of the right of cross-examination.

( 10 ) IN the opinion of this Court, therefore, the learned Rent Controlling Authority has not exercised jurisdiction vested in him properly, an