JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annex.8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant, are that the respondent filed an application under Section 9(A), (I) and Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2001’) before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan seeking eviction of the petitioner/non-applicant from the residential premises in question, as let out to the petitioner/non-applicant. Such eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent of the residential premises in question by the petitioner/non-applicant. It was further stated in the application that the house in question was let out on 01.04.1999 on monthly rent of Rs. 65/- the rate of monthly rent remained the same till 2003, but after applicability of the Act of 2001, the petitioner/non-applicant was liable to pay the enhanced rent of the premises in question, but he did not make the payments, ever since the year 1999. Thereafter, the respondent-applicant sent a legal notice to the petitioner/non-applicant calling upon him to make payments of the arrears of rent, but the same was not done. 2.1. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2018, dismissed the eviction application filed by the respondent-applicant, as not maintainable; against which the respondent-applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 and while quashing and setting aside the said order dated 27.07.2018, the matter was remanded back to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the main application afresh within period of two months. 2.1.1 Vide the said impugned order, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal also allowed the application preferred by the respondent-applicant under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record. 2.2. 2.1.1 Vide the said impugned order, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal also allowed the application preferred by the respondent-applicant under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record. 2.2. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submitted that the application moved by the respondent-applicant under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19(9) of the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record was allowed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, because no justifiable explanation was forthcoming in the said application, which may warrant taking of the documents, as mentioned in the application, on record. He further submitted that the impugned order is also erroneous on count of the fact that such documents were created subsequently, and thus, taking the same on record, at the stage of appeal, clearly runs contrary to law. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant also submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal allowed two documents to be exhibited at the stage of appeal without even providing any adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/non-applicant, and without considering the position of law governing the field. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Bench in the cases of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Others (2010) 8 SCC 423 and N. Kamalam (Dead) and Others vs. Ayyasamy and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 503 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant further submitted that the respondent-applicant filed the application through Secretary i.e. Jaikishan Singhal, who was not an authorized person to file such application, as recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal in its order dated 27.07.2018; but despite that, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, vide the impugned order, remanded the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal, while observing that the application is maintainable through the Secretary i.e. Jaikishan Singhal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-applicant, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/non-applicant, submitted that Jaikishan Singhal is the Secretary of the respondent-applicant (Panchayat), and thus, he was duly authorized to file the eviction application. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-applicant, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/non-applicant, submitted that Jaikishan Singhal is the Secretary of the respondent-applicant (Panchayat), and thus, he was duly authorized to file the eviction application. He further submitted that due to negligence on the part of the counsel representing the respondent-applicant before the learned court below, the requisite certificate could not be filed before the learned Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal passed the impugned order, while observing that the Secretary was authorized to file the eviction application, which is justified in the eye of law. 5.1. He also submitted that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly allowed the application for taking certain documents on record, since the said documents were necessary for the adjudication of the eviction application. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant also submitted that the petitioner/non-applicant is liable to be evicted from the premises in question because he, in an unauthorized manner, is holding the tenancy rights, without even paying the due rent, running due for a long period of time. Therefore, the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has allowed the documents to be taken on record, while remanding the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with judgments cited at the Bar. 8. This Court observes that the eviction application filed by respondent-applicant before the learned Rent Tribunal was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the appeal filed by respondent-applicant before learned Appellant Rent Tribunal was allowed, while remanding the matter back to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the same afresh, and also while allowing the application filed by the respondent-applicant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 19 (9) of the Act of 2001 for taking certain documents on record. 9. This Court further observes that the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal observed in the impugned order dated 11.01.2023, that as per the document dated 09.08.2010, the Election Officer i.e. L.N. Jalani stated that the election stood concluded on 08.08.2010, and accordingly, issued a certificate to the Jaikishan Singhal as authorized Secretary of the respondent-applicant (Agarwal Panchayat). Therefore, it clearly reveals that the said person was the authorized representative (Secretary) of the respondent-applicant (Panchayat). 9.1. Therefore, it clearly reveals that the said person was the authorized representative (Secretary) of the respondent-applicant (Panchayat). 9.1. This Court further observes that the Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan issued the registration certificate dated 22.02.2018, wherein the name of Jaikishan Singhal was mentioned as authorized representative (Secretary) of the respondent-applicant (Agarwal Panchayat). Hence, the learned Appellant Rent Tribunal was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. 10. This Court thus, in the given factual matrix, observes that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, more particularly, in light of the fact that in case certain documents, in the opinion of the Court, are relevant and necessary for fair and effective adjudication of the matter, then the same are required to be taken into due consideration. 11. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner/non-applicant do not render any assistance to his case. 12. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending application stand disposed of.