JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter, the tenant') since deceased and now represented through her legal representatives challenging the order dated 30.1.2010 passed by the Judge Appellate Rent Tribunal Amer (hereinafter the Appellate Tribunal') upholding the order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Judge Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter the Tribunal) directing the tenant's eviction and issuing a certificate of possession in favour of respondent-landlord (hereinafter the landlord' ) since deceased and also new represented through her legal representatives. 2. The facts of the case are that eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner tenant under section 9 (i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the 2001 Act') requiring the tenanted premises reasonably and bona fidely for use and occupation of herself and her family and under section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act on the ground of default for non payment of rent for a period of over four months by the tenant in spite of a registered notice dated 17.9.2003 in respect thereof and disclosure of landlord's bank account (01190013096 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) where arrears of rent was to be deposited. Reply of denial to the eviction petition was filed by the tenant. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1- vk;k fd fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk iqujhf{kr fdjk;k /kkjk 6 ds vuqlkj D;k gksxk\    & vthZnkj 2- vk;k fd izR;FkhZ us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze dkfjr fd;k gS\    & vthZnkj 3- vk;k fd vthZnkj dks fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dh Lo;a o vius iq=ksa fookfgr iq=h mlds ifr] cPpksa ds vkus ij jgus ds fy;s ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS\    & vthZnkj 4- vk;k fd vthZnkj vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 10 ( [k ) ( x ) ds vk/kkj ij fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dk rqjUr dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\    & vthZnkj 5- vk;k fd izR;FkhZ us ifjlj esa rksM+QksM+ dj LosPNk fcuk vthZnkj dh vuqefr ds rkfRod ifjorZu dj U;wlsal dkfjr fd;k gS\    & vthZnkj 6- vk;k fd izR;FkhZ us fctyh O;; dh jkf'k dk O;; ugha fn;k gS ftlds dkj.k vthZnkj ds edku esa yxkk fo|qr lEcU/k fo|qr forj.k fuxe vtesj }kjk foPNsn dj fn;k x;k tks U;wlsal dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gS\    & vthZnkj 7- vuqrks"k\ 3. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the landlord did not press the issue pertaining to her bona fide and reasonable necessity under section 9 (i) of the 2001 Act and the case was confined and argued on the tenant having committed default in payment of rent under section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act making him liable to be ejected, with the corresponding direction for the issue of certificate of possession in favour of the landlord. 4. On the evidence laid before the Tribunal on the issue of default in payment of rent Rs. 300/- per month, the learned Tribunal found that the notice dated 17.9.2003 as required under second proviso to section 9 (a) of the 2001 Act had been issued by the landlord disclosing her bank account (01190013096 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) in which arrears of rent due for over four months commencing May, 2002 were to be deposited. In spite of the notice aforesaid, arrears of rent due for over four months were not deposited. The learned Tribunal negatived the defence of the tenant that the bank account (0119001396 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) conveyed to the tenant had been closed. For this the Tribunal took into consideration Ex. P- 10 copy of the land-lord's pass-book of account (01190013096 with State Bank of India, main branch Ajmer) indicating the account being operational between 13.3.1999 and 14.12.2004. A plea by the tenant in his written statement to the eviction application for cross examination of the landlord on her affidavit in evidence was raised, which was negatived by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction with reference to facts which obtained in the case . The learned Tribunal found that the tenant was in arrears of rent for over four months in spite of registered notice dated 17.9.2003 along with details of the account No. 01190013096 of the landlord, and had failed to deposit arrears of rent due within a period of one month from the date of notice. Finding a ground of default made out, an order of eviction was passed on 10.2.2005 and certificate of possession in favour of the landlord issued by the Tribunal. Finding a ground of default made out, an order of eviction was passed on 10.2.2005 and certificate of possession in favour of the landlord issued by the Tribunal. An appeal under section 19 of the 2001 Act against the order of eviction and certificate of possession dated 10.2.2005 was also dismissed on 30.1.2010 by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, Hence this petition. 5. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the orders of the Tribunal passed on 10.2.2005 and of the Appellate Rent Tribunal passed on 30.1.2010 are liable to be quashed and set aside on two grounds. One, that the request for cross-examination of the landlord on her affidavit in evidence, as made in the written statement to the eviction application was denied by the learned Tribunal without just cause. Reference has been made to a judgment of this Court in case of Asandas v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) CDR 1277 (Raj) DB and in the case of Ramswaroop v. Charanjeet Singh, RLW 2007 (4) Raj 3427 to submit that where adjudication of a petition for eviction is to be determined by finding of facts mere reliance on affidavit in evidence without any opportunity of cross-examination would tantamount to wrongful refusal to exercise the jurisdiction under section 21 (3) of the 2001 Act, entail denial of the principles of natural justice and vitiate the order of eviction, Further it has also been submitted that in reply to an earlier notice dated 8.3.2003 sent by the landlord, the tenant vide letter dated 9.4.2008 required the disclosure of account number of the landlord where arrears were to be deposited, but the account number of the landlord and the Bank/Branch was not disclosed. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the aforesaid fact in coming to a perverse finding that the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent commencing. May, 2002 in the landlord's account No. 01190013096 with the SBI Main Branch Ajmer within one month of receipt of the notice. Counsel submits that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Resahm Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord has submitted that as far as the issue of cross- examination of the landlord' is concerned. Counsel submits that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Resahm Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord has submitted that as far as the issue of cross- examination of the landlord' is concerned. no formal application was moved and such requirement was oddly indicated only in the reply to eviction petition which was of no avail. He submits that no application for the purpose was admittedly made and no occasion therefore arises to argue before this Court that the request for cross-examination of the landlord was wrongly denied. Counsel submits that even otherwise the tenant has no indefeasible right to cross-examine the landlord in terms of the provisions of the 2001 Act, where under permission to allow cross-examination lies solely in the judicial discretion of the Tribunal with reference to evidence on the issue before the Tribunal. It is submitted that in the case at hand the landlord had placed on record her pass-book of account No. 01190013096 with State Bank of India, main Branch, Ajmer, indicating the fact that the account No. 01190013096 was operative between 13.3.1999 and 14.12.2004. It has been submitted that the tenant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 300/- per month commencing May, 2002 and the registered notice dated 17.9.2003, required the tenant to deposit arrears of rent for over four months in the aforesaid account. It is submitted that any request for cross examination of the landlord on the question whether the account No. 0119001396 was operational between 13.3.1999 and 14.12.2004 in spite of a pass book relating thereto filed and exhibited as Ex. P. 10 before the Rent Tribunal was of no consequence, inasmuch as documentary evidence with regard to the notified account being exhibited, if could not be shaken by oral evidence. Counsel submits that in the facts of the case it was obvious that the requirement of cross-examination made in the counter-statement and not by a formal application was only an attempt to delay the trial and defeat the object of an expedited summary trial under the Act of 2001. 8. It is submitted that any oral evidence to displace the fact of bank account No. 01190013096 being operational at the relevant time was a non-sequitur and impermissible under section 92 of the Evidence Act. 8. It is submitted that any oral evidence to displace the fact of bank account No. 01190013096 being operational at the relevant time was a non-sequitur and impermissible under section 92 of the Evidence Act. Hence no ground based on principles of natural justice being contravened on denial of cross-examination of the landlord can be made out In the facts of the case. Counsel submits that in the state of evidence before the learned Tribunal there was ample evidence for conclusing that the tenant had been in arrears of rent for over four months commencing May, 2002 payable to the landlord and in spite of registered notice dated 17.9.2003 requiring the deposit of the said arrears of rent in the landlord's bank account No. 01190013096, the tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent within one month of the notice dated 17.9.2003. Counsel submits that in view of the concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below no interference therewith by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 385 to submit that absent perversity and misdirection in law, a petition under Article 227 impugning the findings of facts of Courts below ought not to be entertained. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the writ petition. 10. No doubt this Court in the case of Assandas (supra) and Ram Swaroop (supra) has held that right to cross-examination of a deponent of an affidavit in evidence is a valuable right which is not to be highly denied both in terms of judicial discretion of the Tribunal under section 21 (3) of the 2001 Act and even otherwise in terms of principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Court has however not interpreted the right to cross-examine as an absolute right. In case of Ramswaroop (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that it is the obligation of the Rent Tribunal while considering the application for cross examination to consider pleadings, the facts to be provide by the other party, besides the affidavit, the other material which can help in assessing the requirement of leading evidence and then to decide whether in a given case, permission to cross-examination will be refused. "Another aspect of the matter also needs to be considered. Right to cross examine being related to natural justice, as in all cases of natural justice contravention, as held by the Supreme Court the question of prejudice would be a relevant issue. In the case of Transport Corporation v. I.C.C. Rathi, (2008) 11 SCC 502 the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and then application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It has been held that to sustain a plea of natural justice is must be established that an aggrieved party has been prejudiced. 11. In a summary trial and procedure as provided for under the Rent Control Act, 2001 permission to cross-examine cannot be mechanical and ought to be based on potential prejudice to a party being denied permission to cross-examine. In cases based on denial of right to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit, in my considered opinion, it should be established that such denial resulted in prejudice to the applicant who sought to cross examine the deponent of an affidavit in evidence. To my mind, no prejudice to the tenant in the present case was caused because of the denial of prayer to cross-examine the landlord casually made in the reply to the eviction petition without filing a formal application for the purpose. Registered notice dated 17.9.2003 under the hand of the Counsel of the landlord was admitted, in which arrears of rent for over four months were required to be paid and bank account number and details of bank's address provided to the tenant. To this no reply was sent by the tenant. The tenant had not been able to establish from the evidence on record that the due rent had been paid by her and she was not in arrears of rent for over four months. Arrears of rent for over four months had thus been established. The only issue which remained was as to whether the bank account No. 0 1190013096 of the landlord at SBI main Branch, Ajmer, as conveyed to the tenant vide notice dated 17.9.2003 was operational. This was proved by Ex. P. 10 the pass-book issued by the Bank for account No. 01190013096 of the landlord, which was operational between 13.3.1999 and 14.12.2004. This was the document duly exhibited before the Tribunal. This was proved by Ex. P. 10 the pass-book issued by the Bank for account No. 01190013096 of the landlord, which was operational between 13.3.1999 and 14.12.2004. This was the document duly exhibited before the Tribunal. Rule against parole evidence would be applicable under section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and would disallow oral evidence to override and disbelieve the disbelieve the documentary evidence. In any event cross-examining the landlord on a document (Pass Book) issued by the Bank would be an exercise in futility. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion the request of the tenant to cross-examine the landlord on her affidavit in evidence was misdirected and nothing concrete or beneficial to the tenant there from could be visualised. No prejudice to the tenant was thus caused by the denial of cross-examination of the landlord. More importantly this Court takes into consideration that the request for the cross-examination of the landlord appears to have casually been made by way of an averment in the reply to the eviction petition and no formal application was made. It appears that the only purpose of cross-examination of the landlord was to delay the adjudication of the eviction petition without any other good cause or need to buttress the tenant's defence there from. 12. I also do not find any force in the submission of the Counsel for the tenant that the Tribunal erred in over looking the tenant's letter dated 9.4.2003 to the landlord asking for details of the landlord's bank account in which the arrears of rent could be deposited. The letter dated 9.4.2003 refer. ed to a period prior to the registered notice dated 17.9.2003 wherein the landlord had admittedly disclosed her bank account in which the arrears of rent commencing May, 2002 due and owing by the tenant to the landlord was to be deposited. The registered notice dated 17.9.2003 has been found to have been served on the tenant by the Tribunal. Thus the argument raised by the tenant is without force and insufficient to dislocate the impugned orders. 13. The registered notice dated 17.9.2003 has been found to have been served on the tenant by the Tribunal. Thus the argument raised by the tenant is without force and insufficient to dislocate the impugned orders. 13. The upshot of the aforesaid consideration by this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the impugned orders dated 30.1.2010 passed by the Judge Appellate Rent Tribunal Ajmer upholding the order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Judge Rent Tribunal Amer are neither perverse nor vitiated by misdirection in law and therefore the petition deserves no indulgence. It is liable to be dismissed. So dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******