Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1117 (PNJ)

Kusum Rani v. Yashwant Rai

2005-10-24

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Moga whereby the evidence of the tenant-petitioner has been closed by order. The landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (Act for short) seeking eviction of the present petitioner from the shop in dispute. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was disputed by the petitioner. In fact, it is the stand of the petitioner that one Harbans lal s/o Shri Mohan Lal is in possession of the disputed premises and he is running STD/PCO since 1996. During the proceedings in the case, the landlord-respondent closed his evidence on 1.3.2004 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 11.5.2004, 13.9.2004, 27.10.2004, 8.12.2004, 12.1.2005, 16.2.2005, 17.3.2005, 7.4.2005, 4.5.2005, 4.6.2005, 8.6.2005, 27.7.2005 and 29.8.2005 on which date the impugned order had been passed. In fact, it is contended that on the date the evidence of the petitioner was closed, her counsel moved an application (Annexure P-2) seeking adjournment on the ground that the respondent was not feeling well. However, the same has been rejected. It is contended that the landlord-respondent had closed his evidence on 1.3.2004 and the case for the evidence of the petitioner was fixed for the first time on 11.5.2004 and she applied for summoning of the witnesses on 29.3.2004 (Annexure P-3).Therefore, before the very first date for evidence of the petitioner, she filed an application for summoning the witnesses and also deposited the diet money on 31.3.2004. Besides, she has given up one witness and only one summoned witness of Canara bank and the petitioner herself are to be examined. As such, it is submitted that the ground for closing the evidence of the petitioner is clearly unwarranted. 2. In response, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that a perusal of the various interim orders passed by the Rent Controller would show that the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunities to lead her evidence and despite that she has not led the same. Therefore, the order that has been passed closing the evidence of the petitioner does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Therefore, the order that has been passed closing the evidence of the petitioner does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It is appropriate to note that the landlord-respondent filed a petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner in 1999. He took almost 5 years from 1999 to 1,3,2005 to adduce his evidence, which he closed on 1.3.2005. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner for the first time on 11.5.2004 and she applied for summoning the witnesses well before time in pursuance of an application moved on 29.3.2004 (Annexure P-3). The necessary diet money for summoning witnesses was also deposited on 31.3.2004. The interim orders passed in the case, which are reproduced in the grounds of revision, also show that the petitioner had been taking steps to produce her evidence. Now only one witness of the Canara Bank and the petitioner herself are to be examined. In the circumstances, it is not a case where the petitioner has been absolutely dormant and she has been pursuing the case. Besides, the petitioner has given up one witness and only the summoned witness of the Canara Bank and she herself are to be examined. The fact that diet money for summoning the witnesses of the Canara Bank was deposited on 31.3.2004, it would be in the interest of justice that the said witness is summoned and examined. Besides, the tenant petitioner herself is also examined as a witness. For this purpose no prejudice would be caused to the landlord-respondent who can be compensated with costs. It is also appropriate to note that counsel for the tenant-petitioner had submitted an application on 29.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) that is the date on which impugned order was passed that the tenant-petitioner was not feeling well and she was unable to move due to weakness. As such, she had not come to depose before the Rent Controller. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is liable to be granted an effective opportunity to produce her evidence. 4. As such, she had not come to depose before the Rent Controller. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is liable to be granted an effective opportunity to produce her evidence. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 29.8.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller, Moga is set aside and the petitioner is granted an effective opportunity to produce the Clerk concerned of the Canara Bank and also examine herself as a witness which shall however be subject to payment of Rs. 3000/- as costs by the petitioner to the respondent.