JUDGMENT 1. - This writ is directed against order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No.21/2006, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the petitioners/non-applicants under Section 21 and 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001') read with Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC, praying for deletion of para No.9 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents and to struck off a document Exhibit 17 and an affidavit of one Shri Narpat Singh Mehta from the record stands rejected. 2. The brief facts in nutshell relevant to the controversy involved filed this writ petition are that respondents No. 1 to 5 (landlord) filed a petition under Section 15 of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur for eviction of petitioners (tenants) from the disputed property let out to them, on the grounds in terms of provisions of Section 9(i) and (m) of the Act of 2001 i.e. for reasonable and bona fide necessity and the requirements of the premises to carry out the building work. 3. The respondents are currying on business in the name of Jodhpur Lodge on the first floor of the premises in question. The requirements of the premises to carry out the building work is pleaded by the respondents stating that on 07.12.1999 fire broke in godown of firm M/s. Delhi Furniture House which spreaded in their property. According to the respondents, the fire has caused substantial damage to their property and therefore, the same needs to be reconstructed after dismantle. 4. The application is being contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply thereto. The petitioners have taken the stand in their reply that the walls and the roof of the disputed properly have not been damaged and the same is safe for human haoitation. In para No. 9 of the reply, the petitioners denied the allegation that on account of the fire, the premises has been completely damaged. It is stated that only certain stone slabs cracked, which fell on the roof of the rented premises and damaged the kitchen and resulted in cracks in the roof made of stone slabs, Precisely, according to the petitioners, the premises has not been substantially damaged so as to warrant reconstruction after dismantling the existing building. 5. It is stated that only certain stone slabs cracked, which fell on the roof of the rented premises and damaged the kitchen and resulted in cracks in the roof made of stone slabs, Precisely, according to the petitioners, the premises has not been substantially damaged so as to warrant reconstruction after dismantling the existing building. 5. The respondents filed a detailed rejoinder to the reply filed or behalf of the petitioners. In para No. 9 of the rejoinder, the respondents reiterating their stand that the premises stand substantially damaged placed on record the video of the entire (building and so also a report (Ex. 17) prepared by an expert Dr.3.C. Punamia, Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur after undertaking site inspection alongwith yet another engineer one Shri Narpat Singh Mehta. The photographs showing the wide spread damages to the structural elements of the building are also attached with the report produced. Besides, in support of the averments made in the rejoinder, an affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta lids also been filed. 6. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 21 and 15 of the Act of 2001 read with Order 8, Rule 9 , CPC objecting the additional pleadings in para No. 9 of the rejoinder so also the document (Ex,17) and affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta being taken on record. It was prayed that para No.9 of the rejoinder may be ordered to be deleted and the Ex.17 alongwith photographs and the affidavit of Shri Narpat Singh Mehta may be struck off from the record and be kept In the "D" part of the file. 7. After consideration of the rival submissions; the Court below arrived at the finding that by way of rejoinder the respondents have only controverted the averments made in the reply and it cannot be said that the new facts have been pleaded by them. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioners/non-applicants has been rejected. Hence, this petition. 8. 7. After consideration of the rival submissions; the Court below arrived at the finding that by way of rejoinder the respondents have only controverted the averments made in the reply and it cannot be said that the new facts have been pleaded by them. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioners/non-applicants has been rejected. Hence, this petition. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the respondents is that the property has become unsafe for human habitation and in support of their allegations, they have already filed affidavits and documents including the report of the expert and the petitioners have already replied the allegations contained in the petition therefore, the respondents have no right to file yet another inspection report prepared by the so called experts so also the video showing the alleged wide spread damage to the property. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no opportunity to controvert the new averments made in the rejoinder and the documents produced in support thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the replication and rejoinder have well defined meaning and the respondents cannot be permitted to plead new' facts which form the part of their cause of action. Learned counsel submitted that in rejoinder, only the averments made in the reply can be explained and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to come forward with entirely a new' case. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decisions of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Mohammed Ikbal and Ors., 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 275 ; M/s Ajanta Enterprises, Jaipur v. Bimla Charan Chatterjee and Ors., RLR 1987(1), 991 ; Surendra Kumar v. Bapu Lal, 2008 (1) DNJ(Raj.) 501 and Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and Anr., AIR 2009 Rajasthan 87 , a decision of Delhi High Court in M/s. Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas, 1995 (1) C.C.C. 154 , a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Parg Narayan Mook Badhir Vidalaya Samiti v. Hukam Singh and Ors., 1997(1) C.C.C. 458 (Allahabad) . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act of 2001. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submitted that as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, the petitioners before the Rent Tribunal is entitled to file rejoinder to the reply as a matter of right. It is submitted that in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the disputes are decided on the basis of the affidavits and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to controvert the averments made in the reply on behalf of the respondents therein. Learned counsel submitted that if the averments made on oath in reply are not controverted, the same shall be treated to be admitted and therefore, the detailed rejoinder filed by the respondents herein controverting the averments made in the reply to the petition cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the rejoinder can always be filed for clarification of the facts stated in the reply. Learned counsel submitted that when the rejoinder is taken on record, there is no prohibition in filing documents and affidavits with the rejoinder. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, when the rejoinder is taken on record, the documents and additional affidavits filed to prove the averments made in the rejoinder cannot be refused to be taken on record. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Mahmud Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2006(1) RCJ, 248 , Anop Chard v. Nand Kishore and Ors., 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.), 1636 , Mahesh Kumar Khariwal v. Rent Tribunal and Anr., 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.), 583 , the decision of the Kerala High Court in Sunil and Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers and another v. Tata Ceramics Ltd., AIR 1999 Kerala 88 , the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Salig Ram and Anr. v. Shiv Shanker and Ors., AIR 1971 Punjab and Haryana 437 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 355 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Material on record. 11. v. Shiv Shanker and Ors., AIR 1971 Punjab and Haryana 437 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 355 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Material on record. 11. there is no quarrel with the proposition of law advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise new pleas and facts in garb of filing rejoinder so as to alter the basis of the case set out or come forward with altogether new case to which the defendant has not opportunity to reply. 12. In M/s. Ajanta Enterprises case (supra), while examining the ambit and scope of provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 , C.P.C. this Court held that "In the garb of submitting the rejoinder, a plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas in his plaint so as to alter the basis of his plant. In a rejoinder he has to simply explain if certain additional facts have been mentioned in the written-statement and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. The position of the plaintiff, to make changes in his plaint, cannot be the same as changes which can be allowed to be made in the written-statement for the reason that defendant may be allowed to make amendments; which may be different from his earlier pleas but the plaintiff cannot be allowed to alter his original cause of action on which he has come before the Court. On this process, it can be said that the plaintiff cannot by was of rejoinder introduce pleas which are not consistent with earlier pleadings." 13. Similarly in Mohd. Iqbal's case(supra), while considering the various judgments of different High Courts including the judgment of this Court in M/s. Ajanta Enterprise (supra) this Court held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new, please under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely now case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. 14. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely now case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. 14. In Surendra Mehta's case (supra), this Court while considering the matter with regard to the right of the petitioner to the rejoinder in the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal in terms or provisions of Section 15(4) of the Act of 2001, observed. " by virtue of provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, the applicant in a rent application is entitled to file rejoinder, if any, to the reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant as a matter of right without seeking rejoinder of the learned Tribunal, but the fact remains that the rejoinder by its very nature shall be confined to the new pleas or facts introduce by the non-applicant in his reply". 15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that in para No. 9 (4) of the original petition filed before the Rent Tribunal, the respondents have given the details on the damage caused to the disputed property. In reply to the averments made, the petitioners denying the allegations contained in the petition submitted that on account of the fire broke, some stone slabs fell on the roof of ground floor which resulted in damage to the kitchen and roof of a room in the rented premises. The petitioners pleaded that the property has not been completely damaged as alleged. The petitioners denied the allegation that on account of stone slabs being fallen, the walls have become hollow. In substance, the petitioners have denied the allegations with regard to substantial damage caused to the property as alleged. 16. A perusal of para No. 9 of the rejoinder reveals that in the said pars keeping in view the denial of the petitioners, the respondents have further explained the damage caused. It is further stated that so as to explain the damage caused, the inspection report prepared by an expert in the field Dr. B.C. Punamia, who is also a person of repute and has authored 20 books in engineering, is being filed. The photographs showing the vide spread damage to the property also form part of the report produced. It is further stated that so as to explain the damage caused, the inspection report prepared by an expert in the field Dr. B.C. Punamia, who is also a person of repute and has authored 20 books in engineering, is being filed. The photographs showing the vide spread damage to the property also form part of the report produced. In the additional affidavit filed, Shir Narpat Singh Mehta has deposed the facts regarding the inspection carried out and the inspection report prepared. 17. Having gone through the averments made in para No. 9 of the petition, reply thereto and the rejoinder placed on record, this Court is in considered opinion that the averments mode in para No. 9 of the rejoinder, only further explain the alleged substantial damage to the and in no manner it can be said that incorporating the facts noticed above in the rejoinder, the respondents have attempted to introduce altogether a new case in the garb of rejoinder to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioners herein. It is to be noticed that in the reply filed, the petitioners have given their own details of the damage caused to the property and therefore, the respondents giving the further minute details of the substantial damage to the property and producing evidence In support thereof cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the rejoinder. 18. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents cannot be permitted to produce additional documents on record alongwith the rejoinder, it is to be noticed that this Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect of the matter, in Anop Chand's case (supra), wherein while dealing with the question of filing documents and affidavits With rejoinder in terms of Section 15(4) of the Act of 2000, this Court held : "7. It is of course true that sub-Section(4) does not say that the petitioner may file rejoinder accompanied by affidavits and documents and merely permits filing of rejoinder within 30 days of the date of service of reply; however, an occasion to file rejoinder would arise essentially when some averment or plea taken in the reply by the tenant calls for its replication from the applicant-landlord. If the suggestion that for want of omission of specific permission under sub-Section (4) of Section 15 no affidavit or document could be filed with the rejoinder is accepted, it would lead to an absurd proposition that although the applicant may take pleadings in replication of any reply averments, yet cannot support and substantiate such plea taken in replication by way of oral or documentary evidence. Such result is neither envisaged by the statute nor could be countenanced. 8. Noteworthy, it is that there Is no prohibition contained in sub-Section (4) of Section 15 that no document or affidavit could be filed alongwith rejoinder. Even if the rule of literal interpretation is applied, as repeatedly stressed by the learned counsel, the submission that no evidence in the form of affidavit or document could be filed with the rejoinder, is itself in the nature of reading a prohibition in sub-Section (4) of Section 15 though there is no such prohibition contained. This Court is clearly of opinion that no prohibition in filing documents and affidavits with rejoinder Could be read in sub-Section (4) when there is none. 9. So far permissibility of filing the documents and affidavits with rejoinder is concerned, the provision being an integral part of the scheme of completion of pleadings per sub-Section (5) and holds summary enquiry per sub-Section (6), it inheres in such provision of sub-Section (4) that in any pleading is taken by way of rejoinder, the same could be supported. It is merely that the legislature has not spelt out the obvious that the plea in rejoinder could be supported and substantiated by affidavits and documents. 11. Apart from the fact that sub-Section(4) of Section 15 contains no prohibition in filing of affidavits and documents with rejoinder, when the Tribunal is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and has wide powers to regulate its procedure and to call any witness per Section 21, it cannot be said that the Tribunal cannot permit filing of additional affidavit or document after filing of the petition or the reply, as the case may be. 12. 12. Thus, if the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, firstly it would only be leading to an absurd result; and secondly, such interpretation could be made only if sub-Section(4) of Section 15 is read in isolation and in disjunction of other provisions of Section 15 and only when Section 21 of the Act is kept at bay. This Court is clearly of opinion that a procedural provision of the statute cannot be read or interpreted in the manner suggested on behalf of the petitioner. 19. Thus, in view of the position of law settled by this Court, the contention raised by the learned counsel objecting the, documents and affidavit filed alongwith rejoinder being taken on record is also devoid of any merit. 20. Lastly, coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to controvert the new averments made in the rejoinder and the documentary evidence produced, suffice it to say that this aspect of the matter also stands settled by this Court in Surendra Mehta's case , wherein after due provisions of Section 15 and 21 of the Act of 2001, this Court opined: "11. The learned Tribunal has also erred in holding that since there is no provision permitting filing of the counter to the rejoinder, therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to file reply to the rejoinder. It is true that in sub-Section (4) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001, permits filing of the rejoinder but there is no specific provision for permitting any subsequent pleadings thereafter. However, sub-Section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 specifically provides that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but, shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provision of the Act or rules made thereunder and shall have power to regulate their own procedure and for the purposes of discharging their function under the Act, they shall have same powers as, are vested in civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by trying the suit or appeal in respect of Matters specifically enumerated and any other matter as may be prescribed. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the principle underlying the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C, may not be made applicable to the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2001. That apart, the procedure provided for the trial of the suit and misc. proceedings are meant for finding out of truth and impart the justice Ice between the parties. Needless to say that the procedure laid down are always the hand maid of justice and the cause of the justice may not be permitted to be defeated on account of procedural technicalities. A bare perusal of sub-Section(3) of Section 21 of the Act 2001 goes to show that the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but, they are bound to adopt the procedure in conformity with, the principle of natural justice. It is to be noticed that such provision requiring observance of principle of natural justice by the judicial bodies and quasi judicial authorities are generally not found incorporated in statutes specifically. In my considered opinion, while providing that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by procedure laid down by Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the legislature has consciously and purposely incorporated the said provision that proceeding before the Tribunal shall be guided by the principle of natural justice 43 obviously, for the reason that observance thereof is considered to be assurance of justice and fairness. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that defence of a party to the proceedings before all Courts, judicial bodies a id quasi judicial authorities must always be fairly heard. Therefore, viewed from any angle order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in eye of law. If the learned Tribunal permits the rejoinder filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to be taken on record then the petitioner herein cannot be denied an opportunity to file a counter to the same to the extent of new pleas and facts incorporated therein by the respondent No. 1. 21. Thus, if according to the petitioners any new pleas and facts are incorporated in the rejoinder which need to be controverted then, they can always seek leave of the tribunal to file a counter thereto. 22. 21. Thus, if according to the petitioners any new pleas and facts are incorporated in the rejoinder which need to be controverted then, they can always seek leave of the tribunal to file a counter thereto. 22. In view of the discussion above, the order Impugned passed by the tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observations above. No order,as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******