Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1691 (PNJ)

Ganesh Dass v. Rajinder Kumar

2011-09-05

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral) - As per the averments, respondents No.1 to 5, who are the legal representatives of deceased Shakuntla Devi, filed an application for ejectment of one Sukhpat Rai Aggarwal (predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.6 to 10) and M/s Ganesh Dass and sons through its partner proprietor Ganesh Dass (i.e. predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and respondents No.11 to 15) on various grounds including that Sukhpat Rai Aggarwal had sublet the demised premises in favour of M/s Ganesh Dass and sons i.e petitioners. 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the suit? OPP 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 3. Whether the respondent No.1 has sublet the demised premises to respondents No.2 and 3 without consent of the landlord? OPP 4. Whether the respondents have material impaired the value and utility of the property in dispute if so its effect? OPP 5. Relief. No other issue is present or claimed by parties. PWs be summoned for 23/5/93. P.F.D.M be filed within a week. SSIC, Ldh.RC.18/5/93.” 3. Further vide order order dated 3.4.1998, the Rent Controller framed the following additional issues: “1.Issue No. 3.A whether the respondent No.1 had entered into a partnership with respondents No.2 and 3 on 5.7.89? If so, what its effect? OPR. Issue No.3.B. If issue No.3-A is proved whether respondents No.2 and 3 are mere licences as partners under respondent No.1? If so, what is its effect? OPR.” 4. The landlord-respondent closed their evidence in affirmative on 3.3.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenants adduced their evidence. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent-landlords to adduce evidence in rebuttal to prove the information given by the Lottery Department, Punjab, Chandigarh stating that they have not issued any licence in favour of M/s. Royal Lottery Ludhiana, Property 1099/1 G.T. Road near Clock tower, Ludhiana as the aforesaid evidence was necessary in rebuttal evidence on issues No.3-A and 3-B. 5. Vide impugned order, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana allowed the said application. Vide impugned order, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana allowed the said application. The relevant order reads thus: “After hearing both counsel for the parties, this Court has observed that issue No.3A & 3B were framed as additional issues, these issues are relating to the partnership which was entered into between respondents No.1, 2 and 3 on 5.7.1989; in order to prove these issues, the respondent has led sufficient evidence. Now respondents have closed their evidence and case is fixed for rebuttal evidence; and the petitioners, in order to rebut these issues, want to led evidence in rebuttal. Counsel for the petitioners has produced on record, application under Right to Information Act which he has made to Punjab Government. Petitioner has also produced to record information given to him in which it has been specifically mentioned that since 1989 till 2004, no licence was given to M/s Royal Lottery Ludhiana. 9. Keeping in view of all these circumstances and documents, this Court has observed that the evidence to be led by the petitioners is merely rebuttal to issue No.3A & 3B and petitioner is not going to lead any additional evidence. In these circumstances, this Court has observed that the present application is genuine one. Hence the application is hereby allowed.” 6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no right was reserved for the landlord while closing the evidence in affirmative and therefore, the evidence sought to be produced which is in the nature of affirmative evidence cannot be produced by way of rebuttal evidence and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. 7. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. Admittedly, the onus to prove issues No.3-A and 3-B is upon the petitioner-tenants. Admittedly, the petitioner-tenant has led evidence to prove these issues. The respondent-landlord is well within his rights to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the petitioner-tenants on the aforesaid issues. Issues No.3-A & 3-B relates to the partnership which was entered into between petitioner and respondents No.6 to 11. Counsel for the petitioner has produced on record information given to him in which it has been specifically mentioned that since 1989 till 2004, no licence was given to M/s Royal Lottery Ludhiana. Issues No.3-A & 3-B relates to the partnership which was entered into between petitioner and respondents No.6 to 11. Counsel for the petitioner has produced on record information given to him in which it has been specifically mentioned that since 1989 till 2004, no licence was given to M/s Royal Lottery Ludhiana. The aforesaid information is definitely relevant to rebut the evidence of the petitioners led in support of issues No.3-A and 3-B. 8. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 9. Dismissed. ----------------