JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.1.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metro ('Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') seeking permission from the Tribunal to produce affidavits in evidence of his witnesses has been rejected. 2. From the material available on record, it appears that while filing the reply to the application filed by the landlord seeking eviction, the affidavits of witnesses were not filed by the petitioner-tenant. Since the evidence of the landlord was over on the same day, the affidavits of three witnesses Manak Soni, Narayan Singh and Mangilal were filed. Alongwith the said affidavits, an application was filed seeking permission to produce the same. The reason indicated in the application was that the party was not aware of the provisions under the Act and therefore, the affidavits could not be filed. 3. The application was opposed by the respondents. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the petitioner herein regarding unawareness about the provisions of law was impractical and not believable, inasmuch as, the matter remained pending for over five years and all the witnesses of the petitioner-landlord were examined. 5. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that it would not be fair to permit the petitioner to file affidavit, once the evidence of landlord was over and consequently rejected the application and fixed the matter for final hearing. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal fell in error in denying opportunity to lead evidence and to file affidavit, the denial to file affidavit would in-turn result in denial of opportunity to the petitioner and the petitioner would be deprived of defending the case. 7. It was submitted that there is no bar under the Act to produce the affidavits subsequently. 8. Reliance was placed on Mustaq Ahmed & Ors. v. Liyakat Ali & Anr., 2010(3) WLC(Raj.) 546 and Murari Lal v. Rent Tribunal & Anr., 2010(1) WLC (Raj.) 350 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It was submitted that the plea raised in the application is ex-facie baseless. Reliance was placed on Mustaq Ahmed & Ors. v. Liyakat Ali & Anr., 2010(3) WLC(Raj.) 546 and Murari Lal v. Rent Tribunal & Anr., 2010(1) WLC (Raj.) 350 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It was submitted that the plea raised in the application is ex-facie baseless. The Act came into force in the year 2003 after passage of more than seven years to claim that the counsel was not aware about the provisions cannot be pleaded. It has further submitted that the affidavits sought to be filed are omnibus in nature and have been filed only with a view to further delay the proceedings and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival submissions. 12. So far as the plea raised in the application filed on behalf of the petitioner while seeking permission to produce the affidavits at the stage when the evidence of the landlord was already over, appears to be wholly baseless and the order passed by the trial court terming the same impracticable or unbelievable appears to be correct. The parties are even otherwise not expected to know the provisions and procedure of law and it is the counsel representing the parties, who is aware of the provisions. It is not the case made out in the application that the counsel was not aware regarding the provisions. 13. However, it appears that on account of some mistake on part of the party/counsel for the party, the required affidavits alongwith reply were not filed. 14. The permission sought by the petitioner was necessary for the purpose of his defense, inasmuch as, the Tribunal had already permitted cross-examination of the parties and its witnesses and in that view of the matter, in terms of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act read with Section 15, the Tribunal should have granted permission to produce evidence. 15. This Court in Murarilal's case (supra) has held that the right to plead and to prove the case emanates not only from the common law but is also guaranteed by the Constitution of India and held that provisions of Section 15 of the Act are directory in character. 16. 15. This Court in Murarilal's case (supra) has held that the right to plead and to prove the case emanates not only from the common law but is also guaranteed by the Constitution of India and held that provisions of Section 15 of the Act are directory in character. 16. Similarly, in the case of Mustaq Ahmed (supra) permission was granted by the Tribunal to file affidavits and same was questioned before this Court, the same was rejected. 17. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 6.1.2015 cannot be sustained. The application filed by the petitioner for taking on record the affidavits is allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 3500/- to the respondent landlord. It would be required of the petitioner to produce all his witnesses on the next date fixed before the Tribunal, which is stated to be 29.5.2015 and on that day, the Tribunal will permit the cross-examination of the said witnesses. 18. In view of the fact that after completion of evidence by the petitioner (landlord) opportunity of filing the affidavits and leading evidence has been granted to the tenant, it would be in the fitness of things that in case the landlord wants to lead evidence in rebuttal, the Tribunal would grant the said opportunity to the landlord . 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.Petition allowed. *******