Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 27th May, 2006 as also the order dated 24th July, 2009 rendered by the Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur and Rent Appellate Tribunal, Swaimadhopur, respectively. 2. The nub of the petitioner's case is that the respondent No.3-Landlord Radhey Shyam filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 on the ground of bonafide necessity and recovery of arrears of rent. 3. The petitioner-tenant denied the plaint allegations and specifically came out with the case that the rate of rent was agreed and the rent was paid up to April, 1998 and thereafter the plaintiff refused to issue the receipts, hence, he deposited the rent in the Court under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. 4. The respondent No.3-Landlord filed affidavits of PW/1 Radhey Shayam and PW/2 Dinesh Kumar and produced seven documents in support of his case. The petitioner defendant submitted the affidavits of DW/1 Iqbal Hussain and DW/2 Hamid Hussain. The petitioner submitted an application on 24th May, 2005 imploring the Rent Tribunal permitting him to cross examine the deponents PW/1 Radhey Shyam and PW/2 Dinesh Kumar but the learned Tribunal did not allow him to cross examine the said witnesses, vide order dated 16th May, 2005. However, the learned Rent Tribunal, after conclusion of trial, passed an order for eviction and for recovery of rent on 27th may, 2006. Aggrieved with this judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal Sawai Madhopur also in his appellate jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal, hence, the instant writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. The only crucial question springing for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether the order of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal on 27th May, 2006 and judgment in appeal rendered by the Rent Appellate Tribunal dated 24th July, 2009 suffer from infraction of the principles of natural justice on account of denial of cross examination of the landlord witnesses namely PW/1 Radhey Shyam and PW/2 Dinesh Kumar despite prayer to that effect made by the petitioner-tenant? 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the orders dated 27th may, 2006 and 24th July, 2009 rendered by the Rent Tribunal, and Rent Appellate Tribunal, are against the law and material available on record. He further canvassed that both the courts below seriously erred in not affording any opportunity to the petitioner-tenant to cross examine the said deponents PW/1 Radhey Shayam and PW/2 Dinesh Kumar. Learned counsel submitted that it was the duty of the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine both the witnesses to bring the correct facts to the notice of the Court. There was oath against oath and only the scale to judge the correctness of the affidavits was to afford an opportunity for cross examination. The question of fact could not have been ascertained sans affording an opportunity to the parties for cross examining the deponents. Both the judgments are against the settled law pronounced by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramswaroop vs. Charanjeet Singh & Ors reported in 2007(4) RLW 3427 and thus, they deserves to be set aside. 8. E-converso, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 defended the judgments of the Courts below and stated the same to be just and proper and submitted that they did not warrant any intervention. 9. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the case of the petitioner-tenant is squarely covered by the judgment of Ramswaroop (Supra) delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. 10. The Division Bench of this Court dealt with all the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 lucidly and having considered the cases of Asandas vs. State of Raj. & Ors (RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1281) and Mahmud Khan vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2006 (1) RCJ 248 = RLW 2006(1) Raj. 380) and critically examined all the essential factors ad longum held thus: "The proceedings before the Tribunal(original and appellate) are not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and to that extent the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to such proceeding. However, the procedure before the said Tribunal has to be in conformity and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. However, the procedure before the said Tribunal has to be in conformity and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Though cross examination of the witnesses of the opposite party cannot be claimed as a matter of right, yet such right being very valuable right since the order of the Tribunal may be seriously prejudicial, upon the application made by a party for cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, unless the circumstances justify denial thereof in the interest of justice, ordinarily such prayer deserves to be granted. 11. In the case of Asandas vs. State of Raj. (Supra) the Division Bench emphasized that ordinarily where the question of facts depends on oral testimony, the cross examination of deponent has to be permitted, when demanded. The observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramswaroop (Supra) are in line with the view of the Division Bench expressed in the case of Asandas. 12. The Division Bench of this Court also dealt with the scope of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 as under: "It is true that the Rent Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is specifically provided in Section 21(3). However, the procedure followed by the Rent Tribunal in every case before it has to be in conformity with the principle of natural justice. Though sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides that the evidence of a witness before the Tribunal(original as well as appellate) shall be given by affidavit but it makes it clear that if in the opinion of the Tribunal and in the interest of justice, the witness needs to be called for examination or cross examination and that such witness may be produced before it, the Tribunal may order such witness to be produced before it for examination or cross examination. The expression, "may order attendance for examination or cross examination of such a witness" though reflects that it is not imperative for the Tribunal to order attendance for cross examination of a witness in each and every case but looking to the power being exercised by the Rent Tribunal and the nature of the order that may be passed by it including the order of eviction, ordinarily, unless strong reasons are shown by the other side otherwise, the permission for cross-examination must follow as it advances the cause of justice. It cannot be overlooked that the Rent Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2001 is a substitute of the Civil Court for deciding the dispute/s between the landlord and the tenant for eviction, rent and other incidental matters. Though the procedure is summary and that the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil procedure, it needs no emphasis that such procedure must be guided by the principles of natural justice. Actually this is provided in Section 21 itself. How does the Tribunal get convinced about the veracity of the affidavit filed by a party in support of his case unless such witness is allowed to be cross- examined by the other side. After all, the Tribunal is supposed to record a finding of fact on due appreciation of the evidence having come before it. The deposition of a witnesses by way of affidavit without cross- examination, ordinarily, may not enable the Tribunal to properly and adequately decide about truthfulness of the deposition. The discretion given to the Rent Tribunal or for that matter to the Appellate Rent Tribunal in Calling a witness for examination or cross examination under Section 21(1) of the Act of 2011, is a judicial discretion and has to be founded on good reason. After all, cross examination is a valuable right, in the context of principles of natural justice, given to a party against whom a particular evidence is set up and if prayed for, must not be denied ordinarily unless such prayer is found to have been made to unnecessarily delay the proceedings or is seen to be actuated with motive." 13. After all, cross examination is a valuable right, in the context of principles of natural justice, given to a party against whom a particular evidence is set up and if prayed for, must not be denied ordinarily unless such prayer is found to have been made to unnecessarily delay the proceedings or is seen to be actuated with motive." 13. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the petitioner-tenant filed an application on 24th May, 2005 imploring the learned Rent Tribunal to permit him to cross examine the witnesses PW/1 Radhey Shayam and PW/2 Dinesh Kumar. 14. The learned Rent Tribunal observed that the petitioner-tenant did not disclose specifically those facts which were concealed by the respondent No.3-Landlord's witnesses and thus, the Rent Tribunal did not allow the petitioner to cross examine the said witnesses. The reasoning given by the learned Rent Tribunal for declining the cross examination of the landlord's witnesses is not found to be convincing and appealing. Following the dictum of the Division Bench in the case of Ramswaroop (Supra), I am of the view that the Rent Tribunal seriously erred in exercise of its jurisdiction in declining to grant prayer for cross examination of affiants PW/1 and PW/2 who had filed their affidavits in support of the pleadings pertaining to all issues. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds. The order of Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur dated 27th May, 2006 and the judgment rendered by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur dated 24th July, 2009 are quashed and set aside. 16. The application dated 24th may, 2005 filed by the petitioner-tenant in the case of Radhey Shaym vs. Iqbal Hussain (suit No.50/2003) is restored to the file of the Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with the law in view of the observations made hereinabove, after giving an opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses namely, PW/1 Radhey Shyam and PW/2 Dinesh Kumar. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur on 21st September, 2011. 18. The Rent Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur is directed to decide the said application of the petitioner-tenant as expeditiously as possible and thereafter decide the application for eviction within a period of three months from the date of the appearance of the parties. 19. The parties shall bear their own costs.