JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J (Oral): This revision petition has been filed by the landlord. The ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord on several grounds as mentioned in para 18(1) of the petition. 2. The tenant, in reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was admitted that she was occupying die premises but denied that she was occupying it as a tenant, under the landlord. Alteration having been carried out by her in the premises were admitted but the same were said to have been carried out in her own right. 3. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of non - payment of rent under issue No.l. The other issues were held in the negative. Two separate appeals were filed - one by the landlord and the other by the tenant - laying challenge to the order passed by the Rent Controller. 4. The appellate Authority re-cast the burden of proof in respect of issue No.7 and the case was remitted back for report. 5. Fresh finding were recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 7 as re- framed and it was held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It was thereafter that the appellate Authority proceeded to dispose of the appeals. The appeal filed by the landlord was ordered to be dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed: 6. During the course of. arguments before this Court as I looked at the judgment passed by the appellate Authority, I noticed that it was focused that the tenant had filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 seeking certain directions to be issued to the landlord for the restoration of certain amenities. The record of-those proceedings forms part of this record. The petition filed by the tenant is Ext. P-5. The Court, in its wisdom, sent her thumb impression to hand- writing expert for comparison. The export Satwant Pun was examined as RW-2 and placed on record his report Ext RW-2/A. As per report, it was opined by him: that the thumb impression did not tally with her admitted thumb impression. The report was, thus, accepted and it has been concluded that the tenant never filed any petition as alleged. 7. The export Satwant Pun was examined as RW-2 and placed on record his report Ext RW-2/A. As per report, it was opined by him: that the thumb impression did not tally with her admitted thumb impression. The report was, thus, accepted and it has been concluded that the tenant never filed any petition as alleged. 7. I took serious note of these developments and the statement of the tenant w as recorded by this Court and thereafter followed by the statement of Shri A.S.Shah, Advocate of Nahan who had appeared for the tenant in those proceedings. The tenant was confronted with the petition filed by her against the present landlord. She was also confronted with the affidavit filed by her in those proceedings as well as power of attorney thumb marked by her. These have been marked as C-l, C-2 and C-3 by this Court for purposes of identification. She completely denied having engaged the services of Mr. A.S. Shah. Advocate. She also denied her thumb impression on the affidavit as well as on the power of attorney. Inspite of opportunity having been provided to both the learned counsel, the tenant was not put any question in cross-examination. 8. In his statement Shri A.S. Shah as CW-2 has stated that he was engaged as counsel by the tenant and the petition Ext. C-l was filed through him. He identified the tenant in the Court and further stated that she came to his office accompanied by her daughter The affidavit Ext.C-2 is said to be dictated by him to his Clerk and he has identified his hand -writing. 9. It is really surprising to find as to how both the Courts below were impressed by the statement of the hand - writing expert and reliance was placed on his report which is only an opinion. No effort was made by the learned Courts to reach the truth which would have resulted into a just finding, which, in my opinion, was absolutely necessary. 10. Again, the first appellate authority in para 15 of the impugned judgment has made reference to a petition filed by the present landlord-against one Rikhi Ram and in that petition it was averred that Rikhi Ram had sublet the premises to the present tenant and the ejectment was sought on the ground of sub-letting. This petition has been exhibited as "RA on record. This petition has been exhibited as "RA on record. In the same paragraph it has been observed that it ‘was only a certified copy and was just permitted to1 be exhibited. Surprisingly, the learned Court has drawn an adverse inference against the landlord on this account. Before me also, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord Mr. Bhupender Gupta has laid stress on the fact that the landlord was not confronted with this petition. 11. I cannot refrain from expressing my displeasure the way the proceedings have been held by both the Courts below. I find serious contradictions in the written statement filed by the tenant and in her statement as RW-1. Further, in her statement she has stated that her daughter might have gone to the counsel at Nahan whereas in the Court she even refused to identify the counsel. Mr. Kuldip Singh has brought to my notice the statement of the landlord wherein he stated that the tenant is occupying the premises on rent since 1965. Surprisingly, the petition copy of which is Ext. RA. was filed by the landlord against Rikhi Ram and the present tenant on February 15, 1982. If this version is accepted, it would mean that the present landlord did hot accept Shilla Devi, the present tenant, as his tenant in the year 1982. The petition for restoration of amenities was filed in the year 1975 by the tenant and in that petition she has claimed herself to be the tenant under the landlord. 12. In view of the state of affairs as projected above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgments suffer from manifest irregularities as well as illegalities.. The impugned judgments are consequently, ordered to be set aside and the case is sent back to the Rent Controller for decision afresh on. merits. In case a request is made by the parties for production of further evidence, two opportunities to each of the parties shall be provided in a time abound frame schedule. If either of the parties fails to conclude its evidence within the given opportunities, the evidence of that party shall be ordered to be closed by an order of the Court. 13. If either of the parties fails to conclude its evidence within the given opportunities, the evidence of that party shall be ordered to be closed by an order of the Court. 13. It is also left to the decision of the Rent Controller to find out the truth in respect of the petition filed by the tenant in the year 1975 under Section 14 of the Act. If it is found that the tenant has tried to play smart with the Court, suitable action should be taken. All out efforts be made to dispose of the petition within six months from the date the parties appear before the Rent Controller. 14. This revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on May 26, 1997 where after the Rent Controller shall proceed in the light of the directions made here-in-above in this judgment. Parties shall bear their own costs. " Petition allowed-