JUDGMENT
S.N. Jha, C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 23.3.2005 in Case No. 236/2004 rejecting the application of the petitioner to summon witnesses for cross-examination. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Jasoda has filed the aforesaid case for eviction of the petitioner from the premises on the ground of bona fide personal need.
2. Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 provides for special procedure for trial of eviction cases. It permits evidence by affidavit. However, the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal, may in the interest of justice call witness for examination or cross-examination. The petitioner filed application to summon the witnesses who have affirmed affidavits in support of the respondent’s case. The petitioner stated that the affidavits were based on false and concocted grounds and the deponents were related to the applicant i.e., respondent herein. The Tribunal observed that the application did not specify which witness was related to the respondent/applicant and on what point the petitioner seeks to cross-examination them, and accordingly rejected the application.
3. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Asandas v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 20052 CDR 1277, and submitted that opportunity to cross- examination of witness is part of rule of natural justice and where such opportunity is denied the trial cannot be said to have been held in a fair manner.
4. As indicated above, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act provides for special procedure akin to summary trial for disposal of eviction cases. Sub-section 1 and 3 which are relevant to the point may be quoted as under:
Section 21. Procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal.–1 in he every case before the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal the evidence of a witness shall be given by affidavit. However, the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal, where it appears to it that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination and such witness can be produced, may order attendance for examination or cross- examination of such a witness.
3 the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Central Act No. 5 of 1908, but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to such other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure, and for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act they shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Central Act No. 5 of 1908 while trying a suit or an appeal in respect of following matters namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) reviewing its decision;
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(e) dismissing petition for default or deciding it ex parte;
(f) setting aside any order of dismissal of any petition for default or any order passed by it ex parte;
(g) bringing legal representatives on record; and
(h) any other matter as may be prescribed.
5. On a bare reading it would appear that the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of suit including examination of witnesses is not applicable. The Rent Tribunal may regulate its own procedure for trial of the eviction suits giving due regard to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. It is manifest that a party cannot claim opportunity of cross- examination of witnesses as matter of right, the Tribunal must be satisfied that “It is necessary in the interest of justice” to call a witness for examination or cross-examination, as the case may be. In Aasandas v. State of Rajasthan supra, a similar view was expressed and it would be useful to quote the relevant observations as under:
the expression where it appears to it that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination gives out that only where it is felt necessary to call a witness for examination or cross- examination, such witness can be produced and that requirement of calling a witness in the witness box is not necessary and since, in the present case, the applicant has not given the details on what aspects he wants to cross-examine the non-applicant, it cannot be considered to be in the interest of justice to permit cross-examination.
6. Coming to the instant case, as observed by the Tribunal, the petitioner did not spell out the points on which he proposed to cross-examine the witnesses and which of them were relate to the applicant-respondent. The prayer to our mind was vague and omnibus and the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting such an application. As observed above, opportunity of cross- examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The party is required to satisfy the Tribunal that it is necessary to summon witness in the interest of justice for cross-examination.
7. In the above premises we find no error in the order of Tribunal to warrant interference by this Court.
8. The petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.