JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.01.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Ajmer whereby his application, praying that the court may direct the respondent No.2, Smt. Suman, to produce the high school certificate and the death certificate of her husband, has been dismissed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity. She had pleaded that she is staying her brother-in-law's (Jeth) house. In the written statements, the petitioner had contended that the house of the brother-in-law, in fact, was an ancestral house where the respondent No.2's late husband also had an interest. Therefore, the said house being an ancestral property, she also had the right to reside in the said house. But, the respondent No.2 had submitted an adoption deed to establish the fact that her husband was adopted by an uncle of his. Therefore, she did not have any right to stay in the ancestral house. In order to rebut this document, the petitioner had moved an application praying that the high school certificate and the death certificate of the husband of the respondent No.2 should be produced in the court. While filing the reply to the said application, the respondent No.2 had contended that she has no knowledge of the high school where her husband had studied, and no high school certificate is available with her. After hearing both the parties, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2009. Hence this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. R.K. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, had contended that subsequently, the respondent No.2 had filed an application for bringing an order passed by a court wherein it was clearly held that in fact, her husband had gone in adoption to his uncle. The said document has already been taken on record. Therefore, the court was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. For, two different yardsticks cannot be adopted by the same court. 4. Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that according to Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, in case a registered document (adoption deed) is produced before the Court, the court shall presume that the adoption was validly done in accordance with the Act, 1956. 4. Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that according to Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, in case a registered document (adoption deed) is produced before the Court, the court shall presume that the adoption was validly done in accordance with the Act, 1956. According to the learned counsel, the adoption deed produced by the respondent No.2 was registered. Thus, the court is free to draw the presumption. Moreover, since the school certificate is not available with the respondent No.2, she cannot be compelled to produce a document which is not in her possession. Lastly, even the death certificate is not available with the respondent No.2., Therefore, she is unable to produce both the documents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that despite the existence of the adoption deed, the petitioner had moved the application after the evidence was closed and after numerous dates were given for final arguments. In case, the petitioner was eager to challenge the validity of the adoption deed, he could have moved the application earlier. Moreover, once an adoption deed has been produced, it is for the petitioner to argue against the validity or veracity of the adoption deed. The two documents wanted by the petitioner would not throw any light on the validity or veracity of the adoption deed. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 6. Thus, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******