ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 8.12.15 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short the Act of 2001), for taking documents on record, stands rejected. 2. The respondent has filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bona fide requirement in terms of provisions of Section 9(a) & (i) of the Act of 2001. The petition is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. While denying the bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded, the petitioner has taken inter alia a specific stand that the respondent has let out one shop to Shri Rajkumar Vyas only two months prior to filing of the petition. According to the petitioner, had there been bona fide requirement of the premises for the respondent's daughter-in-law, the available premises would not have been let out by the respondent as aforesaid. 3. In the cross examination, on the question being put on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent Om Prakash (PW 1) has admitted that just two months before the filing of the petition, he had mortgaged one shop to Shri Rajkumar. The evidence of the respondent stands concluded and the matter is posted for petitioner's evidence. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application as aforesaid for producing on record the documents i.e. the mortgage deeds executed by the respondent and his wife in favour of various persons. The application preferred stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred without examining the factum of relevance of the document sought to be produced to the controversy involved in the matter. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application observing that document sought to be produced could have been produced earlier and therefore, same cannot be taken on record at the belated stage. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application observing that document sought to be produced could have been produced earlier and therefore, same cannot be taken on record at the belated stage. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of Kalu Ram v. Om Prakash & Anr., 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 875. Learned counsel submitted that the vacant premises in possession of the respondent having been mortgaged two month's prior to filing of the petition, the mortgage deed sought to be produced is relevant document and thus, could not have been refused to be taken on record. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judicial discretion exercised by the Rent Tribunal in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner seeking production of the documents at the belated stage, does not warrant any interference by this court. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the Tribunal is under an obligation to dispose of the proceedings within the stipulated time frame. As per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15, the tenant is under an obligation to file his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of service of notice. The rejoinder, if any, is required to be filed by the opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the reply. The Rent Tribunal is required to dispose of the petition within a period of 240 days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. 8. The rejoinder, if any, is required to be filed by the opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the reply. The Rent Tribunal is required to dispose of the petition within a period of 240 days from the date of service of notice on the tenant. 8. As per provisions of sub-section (3), the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal are not bound to follow the procedure laid down under the CPC, but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to other provisions shall have power to regulate their own procedure and for the purpose of discharging the function under the Act, they have the same powers as vested in Civil Court under CPC while trying a suit or in appeal in respect of inter alia requiring the discovery and production of documents. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the Rent Tribunal is not precluded from permitting production of the document even at the later stage if it is found necessary to meet the ends of justice. 9. But in any case, the party to the proceedings producing the documents at the belated stage must satisfy the Rent Tribunal as to why the document could not be produced at the appropriate stage. That apart, he must satisfy the Rent Tribunal as to the relevancy of the document sought to be produced at the belated stage for adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties. 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has taken a categorical stand regarding the respondent parting with the possession of a vacant premises just two months before the filing of the Rent Petition. The factum of parting with the possession of the property by way of mortgage in favour of Shri Rajkumar as alleged, stands admitted by the respondent Om Prakash (PW1) in his deposition. Suffice it to say that the fact sought to be proved by the petitioner by producing the mortgage deed executed by the respondent in favour of Shri Rajkumar is not disputed and therefore, there is no reason why at this stage when the respondent's evidence already stand completed, the said document should be permitted to be taken on record. Suffice it to say that the fact sought to be proved by the petitioner by producing the mortgage deed executed by the respondent in favour of Shri Rajkumar is not disputed and therefore, there is no reason why at this stage when the respondent's evidence already stand completed, the said document should be permitted to be taken on record. The factum of execution of the mortgage deeds by the respondent's wife in favour of alleged tenants is hardly of any relevance so far as the bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded by the respondent is concerned. Moreover, it is not disputed before this court that the factum of mortgage deeds being executed was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and there is no plausible explanation set out as to why the copies of the said documents if the same have any relevance to the controversy involved, were not obtained and produced before the Rent Tribunal at the appropriate stage. 11. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.