Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1170 (PNJ)

Pran Nath Aggarwal v. Firm Ram Rattan Om Prakash

2004-10-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners makes an oral request that the present revision be treated as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So ordered. 2. The petitioner is landlord. He filed a petition for ejectment against respondent No. 1 (M/s. Ram Rattan Om Prakash), inter alia on the ground that the Firm has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises and has in fact delivered the possession to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. During the course of proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence in the shape of producing record from the Income Tax Department where the Firm has made a declaration through its partner to the effect that the said Firm has ceased to occupy the premises of the petitioner. The application of the petitioner was contested by respondent No. 1. It was ultimately dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.1.1999 by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Record reveal that respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 have already been proceeded against ex parte and the service of respondent No. 2 was dispensed with vide order dated 15.5.2000. Thus, there is no assistance from the side of the respondents. 4. I have heard Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order has also been perused. 5. Mr. Mahajan contends that the partner of the firm-respondent No. 1 has made a categoric statement before the Income Tax Authorities that it has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises and this fact would strengthen the case of the petitioner-landlord. Therefore, the summoning of the concerned official from the Income Tax Department with the relevant record of the Firm assumes importance for the just decision of the case. He then contends that the application of the petitioner has been declined by the learned Rent Controller without assigning any reason and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others, 1994(2) RRR 456 (SC) : 994(4) Supreme Court Cases 659. 6. I find force in the submissions made by Mr. Mahajan. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others, 1994(2) RRR 456 (SC) : 994(4) Supreme Court Cases 659. 6. I find force in the submissions made by Mr. Mahajan. The impugned order reveals that what weighed in the mind of learned Rent Controller is that the petitioner has failed to mention the date on which declaration made by the respondent-firm has come to his knowledge. The other fact which has also been taken into account by the Court is that the case is fixed for rebuttal and arguments and if the application is allowed, it would further delay the proceedings. 7. I do not subscribe to this view. The production of the record from the concerned authorities (Income Tax Department) where the respondent-Firm has made a categoric statement to the effect that the Firm has ceased to occupy the premises of the petitioner-landlord is a very important piece of evidence which goes to the core of the case. 8. In Billa Jagan Mohan Reddys case (supra) their Lordships have observed as under :- "It is settled law that, if he documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the Court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC the appellate Court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial Court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove then and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy." 9. In view of totality of the facts and following the ratio of aforesaid judgment, in my considered view, the application moved by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 10. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 13.1.1999 is set aside, the petitioner is given an opportunity to summon the concerned official from the Income Tax Department with relevant record of the firm-respondent No. 1 to prove the statement of its partner. 11. The petitioner with his counsel would appear before the Rent Controller. 10. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 13.1.1999 is set aside, the petitioner is given an opportunity to summon the concerned official from the Income Tax Department with relevant record of the firm-respondent No. 1 to prove the statement of its partner. 11. The petitioner with his counsel would appear before the Rent Controller. Amritsar on 22.11.2004. 12. Since the proceedings before the Rent Controller were stayed by this Court in the year of 1999, there is every possibility that the parties might not be appearing before the concerned Court. In this eventuality, it is directed that the learned Rent Controller after 22.11.2004 would fix another short date informing the respondents by issuing fresh notices to them or in the alternative to their counsel. Since it is an old matter, all efforts shall be made by the learned Rent Controller to conclude the trial at the earliest.