Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The instant revision petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 05.07.2013 of Rent Controller, Ambala whereby his application for allowing the building expert/draftsman to prepare the plan of premises in occupation of other tenants has been dismissed and further an order has been made that no other evidence of the petitioner except one witness namely Ashok Dua will be examined. As per the facts which emerge from the impugned order and the other documents produced along with this petition are that respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner tenant on various grounds which is pending before the Rent Controller, Ambala. Petitioner moved an application seeking permission for allowing the building expert/draftsman to prepare a plan of the premises in occupation of tenants in order to bring on record the true picture with regard to size and dimensions of the premises in question. According to the petitioner, the respondent landlord has let out a big portion of his kothi to 1st Batalian N.C.C. girls for their office but malafidely got it vacated because of low rent and again let it out to Gupta Motors and filed a wrong site plan. In the similar fashion, he got vacated the premises under the tenancy of Kingston School which is still lying vacant and has filed its wrong dimensions. Another big premises which was let out to Om Parkash, motor mechanic was got vacated by the petitioner few years ago and had also given wrong dimensions of the premises in occupation of Vishvkarma Motors, Ashok Kumar of Rosil Glass, Bharat Motors and Shami Motors were let out to them around the time of filing the present eviction petition and filed its wrong dimensions but failed to produce the site plan of the said premises as well as the site plan of the premises which is under his exclusive use and occupation in the said kothi. In order to bring the true picture, the petitioner wants to place on record the plan of the said premises by examining the building expert who will measure the premises in occupation of various tenants under the petitioners. Respondent landlord contested the aforesaid application by filing reply and raising preliminary objections. In order to bring the true picture, the petitioner wants to place on record the plan of the said premises by examining the building expert who will measure the premises in occupation of various tenants under the petitioners. Respondent landlord contested the aforesaid application by filing reply and raising preliminary objections. On merits, it was averred that the petitioner has failed to disclose that which of the premises has been got vacated by him which is suitable to the firm running his business. Moreover, office which was under the occupation of 1st Batalian N.C.C. was got vacated due to the fact that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, whereas the accommodation with Kingston School is situated in the interior portion of kothi No.108 and not on the commercial road and is not suitable for their requirement of the respondent landlord and thus prayer for dismissal of the application was made. While dismissing the aforesaid prayer the Rent Controller observed as under: “Earlier also the application was moved by the applicant tenant respondent for the inspection of the premises in dispute by the Court or in alternate a Local Commissioner may be appointed to inspect the site and to detail the accommodation with its actual measurement and that application was dismissed vide detailed order dated 21.05.2013. Now the present application with the same averment has been moved with a slight change in the prayer clause but the crux of the application is the same and the respondent applicant wants the measurement of the accommodation in occupation of tenants of the petitioner. A perusal of the main petition shows that the petitioner requires the tenancy premises for his own use and occupation. He has stated that he has no other nonresidential building in his possession nor sanctioned for his requirement and the petitioner wants to run his agency business and he requires his nonresidential building in occupation of tenant and he has not vacated any other nonresidential building sufficient for his requirement and in the reply the respondent denied this averment of the plaint and it is mentioned in reply that the petitioner got vacated various premises and let out the same to different tenants to gain increase amount of rent and he has mentioned various instances in support of this pleadings in para No.2 on merits in reply. The parties have to produce their evidence according to their pleadings. None of the party can be permitted to use the Court as an instrument to collect evidence on their behalf. No Local Commissioner can be appointed to collect the evidence by the Court in support of the pleadings raised by one party and to controvert the pleadings of other party and the entire burden is rested on the applicant to prove his pleadings and to disprove the case of the other and it is the applicant who will prove and place on record the evidence with regard to size of premises, the plan of the premises. Moreover, the applicant cannot force the petitioner to place plan of premises on the record and it seems that it is just a delaying tactics. The respondent has been filing such type of applications time and again and this is the second attempt with the same prayer. Hence, the present application is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in legal aid fund”. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent landlord has malafidely not placed on record the site plan of the premises, as noticed above and the plan of the premises which are under his exclusive possession, occupation and use and to bring out the true picture. Prayer in this application for allowing the draftsman/building expert to prepare a site plan of the portions of the building in occupation of the others tenants is necessary and by way of aforesaid application petitioner wants to bring before this Court the actual physical position of the property and the premises let out to various tenants. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that earlier also, petitioner had moved an application with a prayer that premises may be inspected by the Court or Local Commissioner may be directed to inspect the site of the said premises and give details about the total accommodation and its actual measurement. Thus, in pith and substance, the prayer made in the instant application and the earlier application which was dismissed on 21.05.2013 is the same. The petitioner has moved the instant application seeking the same relief which has been declined earlier and the same cannot be permitted. Respondent landlord has filed the instant petition requiring the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation. The petitioner has moved the instant application seeking the same relief which has been declined earlier and the same cannot be permitted. Respondent landlord has filed the instant petition requiring the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation. He has pleaded the necessary ingredients which has been denied by the petitioner. It is well settled that the parties have to produce their evidence in support of their case and none of the parties can be permitted to use the Court as an instrument to collect evidence on its behalf. Thus, prayer made in the application is totally misconceived and the same has rightly been dismissed. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner has argued that vide impugned order the Rent Controller has also restricted the right of the petitioner to examine his evidence and has permitted only to examine one more witness, namely, Ashok Dua. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the aforesaid order cannot be sustained and the same is against the well settled law. It is his further stated that even the petitioner has not been examined so far and in case he is not permitted to be examined it will suffer an irreparable loss and legal injury. However, counsel has failed to lay any challenge to the aforesaid order by referring to any material on the record of the case. Counsel for the petitioner has shown the zimni orders passed by the Rent Controller in the petition. A perusal of the same would show that evidence of the respondent landlord was closed on 17.01.2012 and since then petitioner is continuing with the recording of its evidence and has been granted more than 20 opportunities but he has not completed his evidence. A perusal of the zimni orders clearly prove that the petitioner is just delaying the proceedings. At this stage, the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3A of the C.P.C. which are relevant may be noticed, which read as under: “Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage”. Thus, according to the aforesaid provisions, the petitioner was supposed to examine himself when he had started to lead his evidence. Thus, according to the aforesaid provisions, the petitioner was supposed to examine himself when he had started to lead his evidence. It has not been shown before this Court that the trial Court/Rent Controller has permitted the petitioner to examine himself at the end of the trial and in view there of, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Dismissed.