JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - CM No.10143-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.10144-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexure P-1 and P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2377 of 2012 Krishan Lal Bareja (petitioner No.2 before the Rent Controller) has filed this revision petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act) assailing order dated 08.02.2012 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Rent Controller, Panipat thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioner herein. 2. It appears that petition under Section 4 of the Act for fixing of fair rent of the disputed shop was initially filed by Narain Dass respondent No.1 herein only, who is real brother of the petitioner herein. It also appears that petitioner herein was impleaded as party to the said petition on his application, although opposed by respondent No.1 herein. 3. The petitioner in his application Annexure P-1 alleged that respondent No.1 herein, who is petitioner No.1 before the Rent Controller, has made statement by tendering affidavit that the statement given by petitioner herein be read on his behalf also. The petitioner herein alleged that respondent No.1 herein be directed to lead his evidence separately. 4. The application was resisted by respondent No.1 herein by filing reply Annexure P-2. 5. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 08.02.2012 dismissed the application moved by petitioner herein, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 herein should lead his separate evidence. The contention cannot be accepted. It is for respondent No.1 herein to decide as to what evidence he wants to lead. If he wants to adopt the evidence led by the petitioner herein, there can be no legitimate objection to the same by the petitioner herein. On the other hand, it would avoid duplicity of evidence. Application Annexure P-1 moved by petitioner herein appears to be completely misconceived and is borne out of inter se dispute between the two brothers i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1 herein. On the other hand, it would avoid duplicity of evidence. Application Annexure P-1 moved by petitioner herein appears to be completely misconceived and is borne out of inter se dispute between the two brothers i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1 herein. However, the said dispute has no bearing on the petition for fixing of fair rent, pending before the Rent Controller, because in that petition, only fair rent payable by the tenant (proforma respondent No.2 herein) has to be determined and inter se rights of petitioner and respondent No.1 herein are not to be determined by the Rent Controller. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the Rent Controller so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The instant revision petition is completely misconceived and meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 9. Nothing observed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the fair rent petition or on the inter se rights of the petitioner and respondent No.1 herein in the demised property. ---------0.B.S.0------------