JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Rent petition No. 12/2/2010 was instituted before the Rent Controller concerned wherein the land-lord sought eviction of one Harbhajan Singh from the demised premises. Apparently, the aforesaid rent petition was instituted in the year 2010. The aforesaid Harbhajan Singh instituted reply thereto, on 10.8.2010. 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller had struck apposite issues for evidence being respectively adduced thereon, by the petitioner/landlord and by aforesaid Harbhajan Singh. The landlord has adduced his evidence upon the relevant issues. However, when the case was taken up for adduction of evidence by one Harbhajan Singh upon the relevant issues, an application cast under the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, was, instituted on 23.7.2015 before the learned Rent Controller, wherein a prayer was made that given the aforesaid Harbhajan Singh, developing severe mental ailment(s), hence his being incapacitated, besides his being rendered incompetent, to, step into the witness box, for his testifying in support of the contentions reared by him in his reply. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that no best documentary evidence comprised in a Medico Legal Certificate issued by the competent medical practitioner, with a pronouncement thereon qua the criticality of the mental ailment besetting the aforesaid Harbhajan Singh, remaining un-adduced, thereupon, reiteratedly he was constrained to dismiss the application aforesaid. However, the aforesaid reasons assigned by the learned Rent Controller, is, perse vitiated, especially when a photo copy of the apposite medical certificate issued by the competent medical practitioner, visibly pronounces of the aforesaid Harbhajan Singh, being beset with a severe memory disturbance and his being thereupon precluded from taking part in all the legal matters. 3. The discarding of the aforesaid material, by the learned Rent Controller, whereupon he proceeded to dismiss the application, ingrains it was a vice of impropriety. Since evidently the aforesaid pronouncement(s), stand, in a photo copy of the apt Medico Legal Certificate issued by the competent medical practitioner, thereupon for want of proof thereof from its original by its author, thereupon though rendered it unamenable for imputation of credence thereto, yet the learned Rent Controller, was, enjoined to seek legal proof thereof, by his directing the applicant, to, summon the Doctor concerned, who issued it for his/her proceeding, to, from original thereof hence adduce legally admissible proof in respect thereof. However, the learned Rent Controller, has, omitted to make the aforesaid endeavour also rather has proceeded to wholly ignore its existence on his file. If the recitals borne therein are truthful, thereupon the aforesaid Harbhajan Singh would, not, be a competent witness to testify in Court, in proof of the contentions reared in his reply to the rent petition. Any insistence made upon him to testify as a witness would be both unjust and improper. 4. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate submits that he has no objection in case the application cast under the provisions of Order 32 Rule 3 CPC is allowed, subject to the next friend of the aforesaid Harbhajan Singh, one Ajit Kaur testifying on his behalf as a witness, in respect of the contentions reared by him in his reply furnished to the rent petition, however, the aforesaid submission is rejected, for the reasons of the learned Rent Controller being legally enjoined to ensure proof, in accordance with law, of, a photo copy of the apt Medico Legal Certificate. 5. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the learned Rent Controller, is, directed to, after ensuring legal proof, of, photo copy of the apt Medico Legal Certificate, with portrayals therein of, one, Harbhajan Singh being beset with Dementia, whereupon his being precluded to testify as a witness, thereafter, within three weeks, record a decision upon the application cast under the provisions of Order 32 Rule 3 CPC. Also the learned Rent Controller shall pronounce a verdict upon an application cast under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, filed on behalf of Harbhajan Singh, for recalling of order rendered on 27.6.2015, whereby the aforesaid Harbhajan Singh was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. It is evident from a perusal of the file maintained by the learned Rent Controller, that on 7.5.2016 he closed any further opportunity to the landlord to resist it, thereupon orders, in accordance with law, be pronounced thereon by the learned Rent Controller, cumulatively alongwith his proceeding to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, upon, an application cast, under, the provisions of Order 32 Rule 3 CPC. After decision(s) standing recorded upon the aforesaid application(s), by the learned Rent Controller, he is directed to record his verdict upon the apposite rent petition, within three weeks, thereafter. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. After decision(s) standing recorded upon the aforesaid application(s), by the learned Rent Controller, he is directed to record his verdict upon the apposite rent petition, within three weeks, thereafter. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of. No costs.