Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.4.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in case No. 2/09, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues, has been rejected. 2. The respondent filed a petition u/S. 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short "the Act" hereinafter) for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide necessity, non user of the premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of petition, the petitioner acquiring vacant possession of suitable premises adequate for his requirement and the requirement of the respondent of the premises in order to carry out the building work. The petition is being contested by the petitioner herein by filing reply thereto. It is stated that the respondent in the rejoinder to the reply, the respondent came out with the entirely a new case by adding the pleadings which are not consistent with the pleadings set out in the petition originally filed. It is stated that the plea of denial of title, availability of the alternate premises with the petitioner and clarification of the title of the disputed premises etc. have been added by way of rejoinder. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application praying for framing of the issues on the ground that for convenience and a right decision of the case, it is absolutely necessary. 4. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal by just saying that the framing of the issues is not appropriate in light of the Rules. Hence, this petition. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Tribunal had committed grave error in rejecting the application in cursory manner by a non speaking order. The learned counsel submitted that the application has been rejected by just mentioning that the framing of the issues is not appropriate in light of the Rules, however, the learned Tribunal has not referred any such rule which bars framing of the issues in the matters filed under the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the application has been rejected by just mentioning that the framing of the issues is not appropriate in light of the Rules, however, the learned Tribunal has not referred any such rule which bars framing of the issues in the matters filed under the Act. The learned counsel submitted that when the controversy, as in the instant case, involves various disputed questions of facts, the framing of the issues is an essential exercise in the interest of justice to enable the parties to lead the specific evidence on the issues involved. The learned counsel submitted that the issues are framed with an object to ascertain the real dispute between the parties, to narrow the area of conflict and to see where the two sides differ, therefore, even if the Act does not makes specific provision regarding framing of the issues, there is no reason as to why for the purpose of clarifying the points in dispute, the Rent Tribunal should not follow the procedure laid down in this regard under Order XIV of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC'). In this regard the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "J.K. Iron & Steel Company Limited, Kanpur vs. Iron & Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur." AIR 1956 SC, 231. The learned counsel contended that the material facts alleged by one party and either denied or not admitted by the other party can be decided in just and proper manner only when the points for determination are formulated. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in "Lalita vs. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Udaipur City (South), Udaipur & Ors.," 2005(2) WLC (Raj.) 751. 6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, the Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the CPC but it shall be guided by the principle of natural justice, which includes in itself the fairness of procedure and therefore, looking to the dispute involved, if for proper adjudication it is necessary, the tribunal is under an obligation to frame the issues. Relying on the decision of this Court in "Dinesh Gehlot vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Ors. Relying on the decision of this Court in "Dinesh Gehlot vs. Dr. Jabbar Singh Kachchhawaha & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2825/08), the learned counsel submitted that the adjudication has to be made by the tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and therefore, the nature of proceedings under the Act is not different than the civil proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal runs contrary to the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that as per provisions of Section 9 of the Act, a tenant may be ordered to be evicted only on specified ground and therefore, the Rent Tribunal is only required to decide as to whether the grounds set out in the petition for eviction are made out or not and in this view of the matter, it is absolutely not necessary to frame the issues or points of determination as alleged by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that in the matter of "Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P. Ltd. vs. AMCI (I) P. Ltd. & Anr." (SLP No. 16281/09) decided on 27.2.09, where the question involved was as to whether `issues' as contemplated under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC should be framed in application u/S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (`the Act of 1996'), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the question arising for adjudication as also the person on whom burden is placed is statutorily specified than the need for issues is obviated. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that framing of issues is necessary only where different types of material proposition of fact or law are affirmed by one party and are denied by other and it is, therefore, necessary for the Court to identify the issue and specify the party on whom the burden to prove the same lies. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that as per provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act, the procedure to be adopted by the Rent Tribunal is summary procedure and therefore, any exercise to frame the issues shall delay the proceedings and frustrate the very object of the Act i.e. quick disposal of the matter. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that as per provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act, the procedure to be adopted by the Rent Tribunal is summary procedure and therefore, any exercise to frame the issues shall delay the proceedings and frustrate the very object of the Act i.e. quick disposal of the matter. The learned counsel submitted that directing the tribunal to frame the issues will amount to indirectly applying the CPC, application whereof specifically stands excluded by provisions of sub-section (3) Section 21 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the application was filed by the petitioner without reference to any provision of law with a definite motive to prolong the proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that the pleadings and the entire material relied upon by the parties are already placed before the tribunal and it is competent to decide the same in accordance with law, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner on account of non framing of any issue on any particular subject. The learned counsel submitted that in the matter of "Mahmud Khan vs. State of Rajasthan," 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 112, where the party to the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal claimed an opportunity of cross examination, a Bench of this Court held that the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of suit including examination of the witnesses is not applicable to the proceedings and therefore, the party is not entitled to claim the opportunity of cross examination as a matter of right. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that no party to the proceedings can claim that the tribunal must frame the issues or points of determination on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and therefore, the refusal of the tribunal to frame the issues as prayed for cannot be faulted with. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. As per sub-section (6) of Section 15, while deciding the petition under the Act during the course of hearing, the Rent Tribunal may hold such enquiry as it may deem necessary. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. As per sub-section (6) of Section 15, while deciding the petition under the Act during the course of hearing, the Rent Tribunal may hold such enquiry as it may deem necessary. That apart, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act mandates in unequivocal terms that the Rent 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. But at the same time, it is provided that the tribunal shall have power to regulate their own procedure subject to other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. From the provisions referred supra incorporated in the Act, in no manner it can be inferred that the tribunal is precluded from adopting the procedure laid down under the CPC, 1908 even if on the given facts and circumstances of the case, for fair, just and complete decision of the matter, the tribunal consider it necessary to adopt a particular procedure envisaged under the CPC, 1908. This Court had occasions to deal with the ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 15 & 21 of the Act many a time and therefore, a this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to a few decisions rendered by the Court which are germane to the controversy involved in the present matter. 11. In Aasandas vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.), 431 while dealing with the question as to whether the party to the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal is entitled to cross examine the deponent, this Court after due consideration of the provisions of sub-section(3) of Section 21 of the Act, observed.:- "7. Assuming that Sec. 21 of the Act is intra virus and gives discretion to the Presiding Officer of the Rent Tribunal, after considering the complexities of the case, whether to permit a party to cross-examine the other on affidavit on demand being made for cross-examination before determining the application it has to be decided, otherwise the defects in the procedure remains which occasions failure of justice on account of breach of principle of natural justice, that cannot be permitted to stand. 8. 8. Moreover, it is to be taken note of that discretion vested u/S. 21is not a discretion merely to deny the just prayer for permitting a party to cross examine the witnesses. The right of cross-examination in a mechanical way may not have been permitted by the Rent Tribunal as a matter of course but it has been empowered to vouchsafe a fair trial of eviction application. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that even under the existing provisions of Code of Civil Procedure where the applications are required to be decided on affidavits, where a party disputes the facts stated in a particular case and desires to cross-examine the deponents, ordinarily such cross-examination has to be granted. xxx.....xxx... 15. It may further be noticed that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 21, on the one hand clearly provides that the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but on the other hand, it clearly ordains that they shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act. It inheres into it that ordinarily, statement of any witness ought not to be accepted unless he being cross examined, if such cross examination is demanded." 12. In Mahmud Khan's case (supra), while relying upon the decision in Aasandas's case (supra), a Bench of this Court held: "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 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....xx... 13. In Surendra Mehta vs. Bapu Lal, 2008(2) RLW 1448, while dealing with the question as to filing of counter to the rejoinder filed in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act, this court while examining the scope of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, observed: "11. 13. In Surendra Mehta vs. Bapu Lal, 2008(2) RLW 1448, while dealing with the question as to filing of counter to the rejoinder filed in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act, this court while examining the scope of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21, observed: "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 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 Actof 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 regular 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 CPC may not be made applicable to the proceeding 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 between the parties. Needless to say that the procedure laid down are always the hand maid of justice and the cause of 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. 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 bound 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 b guided by the principle of natural justice 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 and quasi judicial authorities must always be fairly heard." 14. In Dinesh Gehlot's case (supra), while dealing with the question as to whether in absence of any provision under the Act permitting amendment of the pleadings, the tribunal is competent to grant leave to amend the pleadings, this court observed:- "First of all, it is required to be observed that special Act is enacted for disputes with regard to landlord and tenant known as Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and, therein, procedure for deciding the application is also provided. In that Act, although it is not specifically provided for amendment in the suit or reply, but, in my opinion, even though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable, still the nature of the proceedings is not different than civil proceedings and adjudication is to be made on the basis of the pleadings. In this view of the matter, for the purpose of adjudication, even in the absence of express provision to that effect, in case incorporation of fact is necessary for deciding the matter the amendment can be allowed in the eviction proceedings before the Rent Tribunal but no party can claim the same as a matter of right...." 15. Thus, it can be safely concluded that by virtue of the provisions of sub-sec. Thus, it can be safely concluded that by virtue of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 21, the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the CPC, 1908 but the same does not restrict the authority of the tribunal to adopt the procedure and apply the principle underlying the various provisions of CPC, 1908 if for finding out the truth and impart the justice between the parties, it is considered necessary to adopt such procedure. 16. Indisputably, the issues arises when a material proposition of facts or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. The object of any issue is to tie down the evidence, arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The correct decision of the civil lis largely depends on correct framing of the issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. (vide Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Buhania, AIR 2001 SC, 490.) It is true that the eviction of a tenant in terms of the provisions of Section 9 can be sought for only on the grounds specified but then, the existence of the ground necessarily depends upon the basic facts being proved. Therefore, if there is difference between the parties on the material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of the matter, it is always advisable to frame the issues/points of determination. 17. It is true that the provisions of the Act does not mandate framing the issues or points of determination but then, if after due consideration of the matter the tribunal arrives at the conclusion that for a right decision of the matter, so as to impart justice between the parties, it is necessary to spell out the points of determination specifically and unambiguously then it is not precluded from framing of issues/points of determination and while taking such exercise, the tribunal can always apply the procedure and principles underlying Order XIV of the CPC. However, necessity of framing the issues has to be determined by the court taking into account the pleadings of the parties in each case. However, necessity of framing the issues has to be determined by the court taking into account the pleadings of the parties in each case. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, the tribunal could not have rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for framing the issues by simply saying that it will not be appropriate to frame the issues in light of the Rules Needless to say that any application preferred by the parties to the proceedings has to be dealt with by the tribunal in a just reasonable manner and the same should not be rejected in a cursory manner without touching the question raised, by a non speaking order. 18. The provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 15 providing for summary inquiry to be made by the tribunal which is deemed necessary for decision of the petition also does not preclude the tribunal from framing the points of determinations and proceed with the inquiry accordingly. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that since the procedure to be adopted by the tribunal while deciding the petition is summary procedure therefore, the tribunal cannot frame the issues as in case of the trial of regular suit, is also devoid of any merit. 19. Since, the tribunal has not applied its mind to the pleadings of the parties so as to take a decision with regard to framing of issues therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded to the tribunal for deciding the application preferred by the petitioner afresh after hearing both the parties. 20. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned order dt. 23.4.09 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by the tribunal in accordance with law afresh after hearing both the parties. No order as costs.