Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. The petitioner is a landlord. The petitioner had given an application before the learned Rent Controller for permission to lead additional evidence in order to prove the existing condition of the building. One of the grounds for ejectment in the eviction petition is that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner wanted to examine one more building expert and that request has been declined by the Rent Controller and, hence, this revision petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in controversy that earlier the petitioner had examined one building expert and counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the building expert, now to be examined, is to prove that the building has further deteriorated. 3. The objections of the counsel for the respondent are that the revision petition is not maintainable. He has cited the case of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and others v. Mohinder Kumar and others, 1998(3) Punjab Law Reporter 558. In that case this court after considering sub-Section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that revision against the order dismissing an application for permission to lead additional evidence is not maintainable. The petitioners counsel has also cited the case of Jagir Chand and others v. Jagsir Singh and others, 2000(1) The Punjab Law Reporter 360. That was an order passed in a suit for specific performance. So far as the present case is concerned, the bar enumerated under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable, the reason being in Section 15 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (i.e. Rent Act in short), there is a provision of eviction in sub-Section (5) of Section 15 of the Rent Act which reads as under :- "15(5)...... The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such an order in relation thereto as it may deem fit." 4. Various restrictions, which are there in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not in Sub-Section 15(5) of the Rent Act. Various restrictions, which are there in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not in Sub-Section 15(5) of the Rent Act. This being so, the above mentioned judgments will not be applicable, so far as the present application is concerned. 5. Other objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that respondents evidence is already over and the application for additional evidence is only a delaying tactic of the petitioner. It is not known as to why the landlord would like to delay his own rent petition. 6. Next point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the building was not examined by the expert, in his presence. However, he has not been able to say that no notice was issued to him. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the landlord was collecting water on the first floor and he has filed a suit for doing so. However, it is not relevant in the present petition. The learned Rent Controller has held that the application was filed in the year 1988 and one of the grounds for ejectment is that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the petitioner has already examined Parmodh Bhardwaj, architect and, therefore, production of another report from another expert, examined in another case is not relevant and that the application has only been moved to fill up the lacuna. Whether the evidence will cover the petitioners case or not can be decided only after examining the expert and the evidence of the expert will be subject to evaluation. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller cannot be accepted. As a result, this revision petition is allowed. The order rejecting the application for examining the another expert is set aside and the application is allowed and petitioner is permitted to examine the expert as a witness.