[2025:RJ-JP:5505] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1721/2025 Nabbu Khan S/o Bhullu Khan, Aged 53 Years, R/o Daudpur, Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner-Non-Applicant Versus Smt. Kabuli Devi W/o Shri Ramniwas, R/o Ladpur. Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Rajasthan). Through Power Of Attorney Rajendra Yadav S/o Amar Singh Yadav, R/o Yadav Builders, Tuleda Road, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondent-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zakir Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 07/02/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar (for brevity, “learned Rent Tribunal”) in application No.34/96/13 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant (for brevity, “tenant”) under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has partly been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/applicant/landlord (for brevity, “landlord”) filed an application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “the Act of 2001) against the tenant stating therein that she was owner and landlord of the subject property which was let out to the tenant in September, 2005. Alleging that the tenant wanted to raise construction forcibly and illegally in the [2025:RJ-JP:5505] (2 of 3) [CW-1721/2025] tenanted premises, a decree for permanent injunction was prayed for. The tenant in his reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and claimed his ownership over the subject property. During the course of trial, the tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to place on record certain documents which has partly been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned dated 06.01.2025. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the tenant submits that in order to establish his defence that he was owner of the subject property and no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, production of the subject documents was necessary. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 06.01.2025 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC be allowed in toto. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord, opposing the prayer, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order impugned dated 06.01.2025 reveals that most of the documents sought to be tendered by the tenant pertained to criminal proceeding initiated by Shri Rajendra Yadav, the Power of Attorney holder of the landlord. It was held by the learned Rent Tribunal that the statement given in the criminal case or the judgment rendered therein are not relevant at all for decision of the controversy involved in the matter. It was also held that a perusal of the documents did not reveal the same have got any relevance or connection with the landlord, i.e., Smt. Kabuli Devi. I have gone through the material placed on record by the [2025:RJ-JP:5505] (3 of 3) [CW-1721/2025] tenant alongwith the memo of writ petition and does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal. Further, the tenant has filed his reply to the original application way back in the year, 2014 and there is not a whisper of averment in the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC as late as on 06.01.2025, as to why the subject documents, which pertain to the years from 2002-2006, were not submitted in time. Therefore, the application appears to have not been filed bonafidely In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pe.ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J GAURAV/33