Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2007 (PNJ)

Prem Kumar v. Narinderjit Singh

2007-11-16

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. By way of the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Nabha on 12.9.2007 to the extent the petitioner was not allowed to examine the official of M/s. H.F.C.L. Infotel Limited (for short `the Company). 2. The petitioner had earlier filed an application before the learned Rent Controller for amendment of his written statement so as to permit him to plead that the landlords son Tek Pal Singh had let out a shop situated near Balmiki Mandir at Bhuran Gate, Nabha to the Company at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and the landlord also constructed another shop adjacent to aforesaid shop and his other shops and was in possession of the same. Further that a big commercial plot was situated in between those premises which was in possession of the landlord. The entire commercial property was situated within the municipal limits of Nabha. This application for amendment was dismissed by learned Rent Controller, which order was challenged by the petitioner, i.e., tenant by filing Civil Revision No. 3558 of 2007. During the hearing of the said revision, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner submitted that the amendment in the written statement would not serve the purpose, instead he would file an application for additional evidence before the learned Rent Controller to prove the fact that Tek Pal Singh, son of the landlord, had let out a shop to the Company on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 2006 and the rent was being deposited in his account with the U.T.I. Bank, Nabha (for short `the Bank). In view of the same, the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn by giving liberty to the tenant-petitioner of filing an application for additional evidence. 3. The tenant-petitioner then filed an application for additional evidence, which was allowed by learned Rent Controller vide impugned order to the extent that he was granted one opportunity to summon and examine Clerk of the Bank with record. 4. 3. The tenant-petitioner then filed an application for additional evidence, which was allowed by learned Rent Controller vide impugned order to the extent that he was granted one opportunity to summon and examine Clerk of the Bank with record. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that merely summoning and examining Clerk of the Bank with record would not serve the purpose as he has to establish that the landlords son Tek Pal Singh had let out the shop to the Company and the rent was being deposited in his account in the Bank. The Clerk of the Bank would only mention about the deposit of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- every month in the account but it would not establish that the said deposit was on account of rent, which was being paid by the Company unless and until some official of the Company is summoned and examined by him. The liberty granted to the tenant-petitioner by this Court, while disposing of Civil Revision No. 3558 of 2007 would be meaningless if the tenant is not permitted to summon and examine the concerned official of the Company. Therefore, it was prayed that the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Nabha to the extent it did not allow the tenant to summon the official of the Company, be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that the prayer of the tenant for the amendment of his written statement had not been allowed and therefore, he cannot be permitted to summon and examine any official evidence of the tenant, moreso when on 21.9.2007, the trial Court closed the evidence of the tenant, that too, by order. 6. It may be mentioned here that on 11.10.2007, this Court while adjourning the hearing of the revision to 17.10.2007, had stayed the passing of the final order by the trial Court. 7. While disposing of the revision filed by the tenant-petitioner earlier, as having been withdrawn, this Court had granted liberty to him to file an application before the learned Rent Controller for additional evidence. When such an application was filed, it was allowed to the extent the tenant- petitioner was granted one opportunity to summon and examine the Clerk of the Bank with record. When such an application was filed, it was allowed to the extent the tenant- petitioner was granted one opportunity to summon and examine the Clerk of the Bank with record. The summoning and the examination of the Clerk of the Bank with record could only prove one fact that some particular amount was regularly being deposited in the account of the landlord. However, by this exercise, the tenant would not be able to show that the said amount was on account of the rent for the shop let out by the landlords son to the Company. This could only be shown by the tenant if he is able to summon and examine the concerned official of the Company. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that as the tenant has not been allowed to amend his written statement regarding his stand that the landlords son had let out a shop to the Company, this Court would not be justified in granting him the relief by permitting him to lead additional evidence by way of summoning and examining the official of the Company. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., 1992(2) PLJ 72, wherein it was held that the Court would not be justified in issuing any order in excess of relief prayed for unless allegations were made in the petition and a relief to that effect also prayed. However, as the learned Rent Controller has since permitted the tenant to summon and examine the Clerk of the Bank with record and the said order has not been challenged by the landlord before any forum, the tenant- petitioner has to be given an opportunity to summon and examine the concerned official of the Company so that he may make an effort to connect the regular deposit in the Bank with the rent received by the landlords son on account of letting out of the shop to the Company. 9. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent also submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC has been substantially curtailed on account of deletion of Clause (b) and insertion of new proviso and that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the requirement of the proviso is specified. He has referred to Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 147 (SC). 10. He has referred to Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 147 (SC). 10. Though, on account of the deletion of Clause (b) and insertion of new proviso to Section 115 C.P.C., the revisional jurisdiction in respect of the interlocutory orders stands substantially curtailed, yet where the Court finds that either there was error or a manifest injustice caused to the party, which was not capable of correction at any later stage of proceedings, the High Court can revise the orders of its subordinate Courts. The scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is much wider in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction as compared to the powers under Section 115 C.P.C. 11. In view of the above, the revision is accepted and the order passed by the Rent Controller, Nabha on 12.9.2007 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be given one opportunity to summon and examine the concerned official of the Company, i.e. M/s. H.F.C.L. Infotel Limited. To that an extent, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Nabha on 21.9.2007, closing the evidence of the tenant is set aside so that the tenant may summon and examine the concerned official of M/s. H.F.C.L. Infotel Limited.