JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order/note dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rent Tribunal") whereby the document (Exhibit A-15) filed by the petitioner-tenant has been found inadmissible in evidence and the said document has been struck off. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act of 2001"). The respondent-landlord along with the eviction application, mentioned 10 documents in the list of documents, on which she relied and the same were marked by her as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-10. 3. The petitioner-tenant filed reply to the said eviction application and along with his reply, he filed 15 documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-15. 4. The petitioner-tenant has pleaded that while his evidence was recorded by the Rent Tribunal, in his cross examination, reference of a document marked as Exhibit A-15 was made and at that point of time, counsel for the respondent-landlord raised an objection about filing of the said document and marking the same as Exhibit A-15, as the same was a photostat copy of an agreement to sell dated 02.08.2007 and it was pleaded that on a photostat copy, the document could not have been marked as Exhibit. 5. The petitioner-tenant has pleaded that on such objection being raised, it was pleaded on his behalf that no objection was raised by the respondent-landlord or her counsel at the time of producing the document with the reply to the eviction application and as such, belated objection was not to be entertained by the Rent Tribunal. 6. 5. The petitioner-tenant has pleaded that on such objection being raised, it was pleaded on his behalf that no objection was raised by the respondent-landlord or her counsel at the time of producing the document with the reply to the eviction application and as such, belated objection was not to be entertained by the Rent Tribunal. 6. The petitioner-tenant has pleaded that the Rent Tribunal, while hearing the said objection about marking of the document as Exhibit A-15, has found that though powers and procedure have been provided under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 whereby the documents which are filed before the Rent Tribunal by the applicant are distinctly marked as Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and so on in red ink and the documents filed by the respondent are similarly distinctly marked as Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2 and so on in red ink, however, the same power does not include to exhibit those documents which are inadmissible in evidence and the Rent Tribunal further found that only those documents which are admissible in nature, can be marked as Exhibit. 7. The petitioner-tenant has pleaded that the Rent Tribunal has further recorded a finding that the normal procedure given in the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable before the Rent Tribunal and as such, even if the document was tendered earlier, which is inadmissible in nature, the same document is required to be struck off and inadmissible in evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has made following submissions:- 8A. The procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal are provided in Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and whatever documents are filed before the Rent Tribunal by the applicant or by the respondent, the same are required to be distinctly marked by them as Exhibit-1 or Exhibit A-1 respectively. Counsel submitted that the petitioner-tenant, while filing reply to the eviction application, placed reliance on documents and he made a mention of such documents in para-12 of his reply and accordingly, he had marked them as Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-15 and as such, the Rent Tribunal could not have passed the order to strike off the said document which was already exhibited. 8B. 8B. The admissibility or inadmissibility of document will not be dependent on merely marking a document as Exhibit, before the Rent Tribunal and the stage of considering such document as admissible in evidence will be decided at the final stage and not during recording of evidence or cross examination of any witness. 8C. Once mandatory provision under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 provides for filing of documents and marking them distinctly, then striking off and deleting the document will be in violation of the procedure, which has been prescribed under Section 15(2) and Section 21(2) of the Act of 2001. 9. Counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that the Rent Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order/note dated 31.07.2012. Counsel submitted that merely by filing a photostat copy, even if the said document is marked as Exhibit, the said document is not admissible in evidence and as such inadmissible evidence has been ignored or brushed aside by the Rent Tribunal, even at the time of recording of evidence. 10. Counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that only on account of marking any document as Exhibit, filed either with the eviction application or with the reply to the eviction application, does not automatically become admissible in evidence and such document in absence of having relevance to the issue involved, will be treated as inadmissible evidence and the same is required to be ignored by the Rent Tribunal. 11. Counsel submitted that the Rent Tribunal has rightly found that the document of which reference was made, during cross examination of the petitioner-tenant, was not a valid piece of evidence/document which had any relevance and as such, it has been rightly struck off and deleted for the purpose of considering the evidence led by the parties. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 13. At the outset, this Court deems it proper to quote the provisions of the Act of 2001, which are relevant for the present purpose and the same read as follows:- "15. Procedure for eviction of tenant. - (1) The landlord or any person claiming possession shall file a petition before the Rent Tribunal and such petition shall be accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any upon which landlord or person claiming possession wants to rely. Procedure for eviction of tenant. - (1) The landlord or any person claiming possession shall file a petition before the Rent Tribunal and such petition shall be accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any upon which landlord or person claiming possession wants to rely. (2) The Rent Tribunal, upon filing of petition under Sub-section (1). shall issue notice accompanied by copies of petition, affidavits and documents, if any, fixing a date not later than thirty days from the date of issue of notice requiring the tenant to submit reply accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, on which the tenant relies. The service of notice shall be effected through process server of the Tribunal or Civil Court as well as by registered post, acknowledgment due Notice duly served by any of these methods shall be treated as sufficient service. (3) The tenant may submit his reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same to the petitioner, within a period not exceeding forty five days from the date of service of notice. 21. Procedure and powers of the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. - (1) In every case before the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal the evidence of a witness shall be given by affidavit, However, the Rent Tribunal or the Appellate Rent Tribunal, where it appears to it that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination and such witness can be produced, may order attendance for examination or cross-examination of such a witness. (2) The documents filed before the Rent Tribunal by the petitioner shall be distinctly marked by him as Exh-1, Exh-2 and so on in the red ink and the documents filed by the respondent shall be similarly distinctly marked by him as Exh-A 1, Exh-A 2 and so on in red ink and in the affidavits the documents shall be referred by these exhibit marks and signatures or other parts of the documents referred to in the affidavits shall be distinctly marked by the party filing the document as A to B or C to D and so on in red ink. (3) The Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure, and for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act they shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) while trying a suit or an appeal in respect of following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) reviewing its decision; (d) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents; (e) dismissing petition for default or deciding it ex-parte; (f) setting aside any order of dismissal of any petition for default or any order passed by it ex-parte; (g) bringing legal representatives on record; and (h) any other matter as may be prescribed." 14. This Court, on bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 15(1) of the Act of 2001, finds that the landlord or any person claiming possession has to file a petition before the Rent Tribunal and such petition is to be accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, upon which the landlord or person claiming possession wants to rely. 15. This Court finds that the tenant, after receipt of notice accompanied by copies of the petition, affidavits and documents, if any, has to file his reply accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, as per sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act of 2001. 16. This Court finds that as per the procedure provided under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001, the documents which are filed before the Rent Tribunal by the petitioner are distinctly marked by him as Exhibit-1 onwards in the red ink and the documents filed by the respondent are similarly distinctly marked by him as Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2 and so on in red ink. The said sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 further provides that in the affidavits, the documents will be referred by such Exhibit marks and signatures or any other parts of the documents, referred to in the affidavits, shall be distinctly marked by the party filing the document as A to B or C to D and so on in red ink. 17. This Court finds that as per sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but is guided by the principles of natural justice and it has powers to regulate its own procedure and for the purpose of discharging its functions under the Act of 2001, the Rent Tribunal has also been vested certain powers of Civil Court, as has been enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 2001 and such power includes summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and it may require discovery and production of any documents. 18. This Court finds that if any document is filed, either by the petitioner or the respondent, then such document is necessarily required to be distinctly marked as Exhibit and as such, the procedure requires such document to be distinctly marked as Exhibit. Thus, if the document has been filed by either of the party and the same has been marked as Exhibit, no illegality can be found in such procedure. 19. This Court has to consider that if any document has been marked as Exhibit, then whether such document, which has been filed, will automatically be admissible in evidence or the Rent Tribunal will be required to consider the admissibility of such document and if so, then at which stage. 20. This Court finds that the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal are summary in nature and accordingly, the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure has also not been made applicable and further time-line is also provided to dispose of the eviction application, as the eviction matters are urgent in nature and such application requires early disposal as well. 21. 21. This Court, on considering the object and various provisions contained in the Act of 2001, finds that the Rent Tribunal is not required to follow the complete Civil procedure, as the same would be cumbersome and would further delay the disposal of eviction applications, filed before it. 22. This Court finds that if the document, which is filed, is compulsorily required to be marked as Exhibit, then the same cannot be struck off or it cannot be said that the said document has wrongly been exhibited and the same is required to be struck off. 23. This Court finds that relevance of document/evidence is required to be considered by the Rent Tribunal while deciding the eviction application itself. The Rent Tribunal has power to consider the nature of evidence, which is led before it and if it finds that inadmissible evidence or evidence which cannot be taken into consideration is required to be ignored, then the same can be done at the time of deciding the eviction application. 24. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 has dealt with the issue of admissibility of evidence and procedure to be followed by the trial court, at evidence taking stage, when any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence. This Court finds that though the said judgment has been given in respect of criminal trial, however, it would be useful to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgment, as under:- "12. As pointed out earlier, on different occasions the trial Judge has chosen to decide questions of admissibility of documents or other items of evidence, as and when objections thereto were raised and then detailed orders were passed either upholding or overruling such objections. The worse part is that after passing the orders the trial court waited for days and weeks for the parties concerned to go before the higher courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or re-moulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. 16. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence." 25. This Court further finds that the Apex Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752 has dealt with the issue of objection as to the admissibility of secondary evidence, relating to the documents and the stage at which the same can be raised. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted hereunder:- "19. Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced. 20. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced. 20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission V. State of Madras & Anr. ( AIR 1966 SC 1457 ) in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:-(i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court. 21. The Privy Council in Padman V. Hanwanta ( AIR 1915 PC 111 ) did not permit the appellant to take objection to the admissibility of a registered copy of a Will in appeal for the first time. It was held that this objection should have been taken in the trial court. It was observed: (AIR p. 112) "The defendants have now appeal to the Majesty-in-Council, and the case has been argued on their behalf in great detail. It was urged in the course of the argument that a registered copy of the Will of 1898 was admitted in evidence without sufficient foundation being led for its admission. No objection, however, appears to have been taken in the first court against the copy obtained from the Registrar's office being put in evidence. Had such objection being made at the time, the District Judge, who tried the case in the first instance, would probably have seen that the deficiency was supplied. Their lordships think that there is no substance in the present contention." 22. Had such objection being made at the time, the District Judge, who tried the case in the first instance, would probably have seen that the deficiency was supplied. Their lordships think that there is no substance in the present contention." 22. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal [ (1972) 1 SCC 9 ]. In this case the police reports were admitted in evidence without any objection and the objection was sought to be taken in appeal regarding the admissibility of the reports. Rejecting the contention it was observed: (SCC p. 15, para 19) "19. Before leaving this case it is necessary to refer to one of the contentions taken by Mr. Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the respondent. He contended that the police reports referred to earlier are inadmissible in evidence as the Head-constables who covered those meetings have not been examined in the case. Those reports were marked without any objection. Hence it is not open to the respondent now to object to their admissibility - see Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram ( AIR 1929 PC 110 )." 26. This Court, considering the above preposition of law, laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions contained in the Act of 2001, finds that the Rent Tribunal has committed an error by holding that the document in question (Exhibit A-15) was required to be struck off. The Rent Tribunal has further wrongly come to the conclusion that the document filed by the petitioner-tenant, is inadmissible in nature. 27. This Court, however, finds that if the Rent Tribunal, after recording of the evidence, at the time of final hearing, comes to the conclusion that certain documents, filed by any of the parties, are not required to be considered or such documents are inadmissible, the Rent Tribunal is always free to form its opinion and record its finding. 28. Consequently, the present writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order/note dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Rent Tribunal is quashed and set aside and liberty is granted to the Rent Tribunal to proceed in the manner, as directed above. The interim order, passed by this Court, is also vacated. No costs.