JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Present petition has been filed on behalf of petitionertenant (hereinafter referred to as ''tenant'') for quashing and setting aside order, dated 28th August, 2017, passed by Rent Controller, Rajgarh in Rent Petition No. 1/2 of 2011, titled as Arya Samaj Sabha versus Sh. Roop Lal, with further prayer to grant an opportunity to crossexamine the respondent''slandlord''s (hereinafter referred to as ''landlord'') witnesses who were examined exparte on 28th August, 2017 before the Rent Controller. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record placed on record as well as certified copy of order sheets of Rent Controller with effect from 10th August, 2017 to 6th January, 2018 produced by learned counsel for the landlord. 3. Landlord has filed an eviction petition against tenant which is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller. It has been pleaded on behalf of the tenant that on 10th August, 2017, he had changed the counsel after taking no objection from previous counsel Mr. R. S. Thakur for conducting his case before the Rent Controller and engaged counsel, namely Mr. R. L. Kaushal & Ms. Neelam Gupta, Advocates, mainly practicing at Solan and Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate, High Court, Shimla. On that date, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (2) CPC was also filed by the tenant which was fixed for filing reply on 28th August, 2017. On the same day (10th August, 2017), main matter was ordered to be listed for recording statements of witnesses of landlord on 25th August, 2017, but, due to inadvertent mistake, the newly engaged counsel noted down the date of hearing of the rent petition on 28th August, 2017 as the matter was listed for filing reply of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC on the said date. On 28th August, 2017, counsel for the tenant did not come from Solan/Shimla to Rajgarh under bona fide belief that on that day, reply to the application was to be filed by the landlord and tenant was present in person to receive the reply, when he came to know that the case was also fixed for recording statements of landlord''s witnesses. 4. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the tenant that on that day, during prelunch session, tenant had put in his appearance before the Court, whose presence was duly marked, and had explained that his counsel did not appear for the reason that during the interregnum, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC has been filed on his behalf, however, the Rent Controller, after relying upon judgment, dated 8th September, 2010, passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 289 of 2007, titled as Karan Singh and another versus Malkiat Devi & others, had ordered to proceed further for recording the statements of landlord witnesses pending consideration the said application. When the case was called for the first time on 28th August, 2017, learned counsel for the landlord had prayed for time to record exparte evidence. The time was granted, however, the case was listed for recording exparte evidence during postlunch session. At that time, tenant had again conveyed the inability of his counsel to attend the Court on that day. Thereafter, the Rent Controller had taken the evidence of landlord''s witnesses on record in the presence of tenant by making observation that tenant, though present, had not crossexamined any witness and the next date was fixed for 5th September, 2017 for filing the documentary evidence on behalf of landlord. 5. It is further contended that later on, it came to the knowledge of the tenant that the case was also listed on 25th August, 2017, on which date he had been proceeded exparte for want of any representation on his behalf and thereafter, the case was listed for exparte evidence on 28th August, 2017. 6. On 5th September, 2017, after taking documentary evidence of landlord on record, the case was fixed for 20th September, 2017 for filing reply to application under Order 1 rule 10 (2) CPC and also for reply to application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC preferred by the tenant on that day. The application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was allowed by the Rent Controller on 26th October, 2017 with observation that no party should ordinarily be denied opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation and order, dated 25th August, 2017 was set aside subject to payment of costs assessed at Rs. The application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was allowed by the Rent Controller on 26th October, 2017 with observation that no party should ordinarily be denied opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation and order, dated 25th August, 2017 was set aside subject to payment of costs assessed at Rs. 100/ whereafter application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC was taken into consideration and dismissed on 7th November, 2017. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording evidence of tenant on 22nd November, 2017; 21st December, 2017 and lastly on 6th January, 2018 before which date the tenant has approached this Court by filing the instant petition. 7. Landlord has contested the present petition on the various grounds including that there is an inordinate, unexplained delay on the part of tenant for filing present petition with prayer to permit him to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses, who were examined long ago on 28th August, 2017 and, thereafter, not only applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the tenant were decided, but case was also listed for recording the statements of tenant''s witnesses thrice. It is also contended that plea of changing the counsel also appears to be false for the reason that presence of Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate, who was earlier representing the tenant, has not only been marked on 10th August, 2017, but also on 22nd November, 2017, when the case was listed for evidence of tenant for the first time. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the landlord that tenant deliberately did not put in appearance on 25th August, 2017 despite the fact that his counsel, Mr. R. S. Thakur, had represented him on 10th August, 2017, which means that he was having knowledge/notice of the date fixed. Also, referring to zimni orders since 28th August, 2017 to 6th January, 2018, it is pointed out that either the tenant or his counsel Mr. Anil Sharma had put in appearance on his behalf on these dates and also on 22nd November, 2017, Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate had again put his appearance on behalf of the tenant and, therefore, it is apparent that no new counsel was ever engaged by him on 10th August, 2017 and on the contrary, counsel Mr. R. S. Thakur and Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate had again put his appearance on behalf of the tenant and, therefore, it is apparent that no new counsel was ever engaged by him on 10th August, 2017 and on the contrary, counsel Mr. R. S. Thakur and Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocates, were pursuing the matter on behalf of the tenant. 9. Tenant has placed on record certified copy of power of attorney, dated 10th August, 2017, received from the record of the Rent Controller, indicating thereupon no objection of previous counsel Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate and acceptance of Mr. R. L. Kashyap, Ms. Neelam Gupta and Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocates from Solan and Shimla, on behalf of the tenant. It is undisputed that Mr. R. S. Thakur, learned counsel earlier representing the tenant, is in regular practice at Rajgarh. On 25th August, 2017, i. e. date fixed immediately after 10th August, 2017, there was no representation on behalf of the tenant. Further, on 28th August, 2017, it has also come in the order of Rent Controller that tenant had informed that his counsel would not be able to appear in the Court on that day, which stands explained in the petition and also from the power of attorney wherein it has specifically mentioned that newly engaged counsel were either from Solan or from Shimla. Had Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate, been continuing to represent the tenant, there was no reason for the tenant to take risk to get recorded exparte evidence against him without availing the right to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses. It appears that presence of Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate, on 22nd November, 2017, has been marked wrongly on the basis of previous record creating confusion about the counsel representing the tenant. 10. It is contention of the tenant that application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by him was listed on 28th August, 2017 whereas main matter was listed for evidence on 25th August, 2017, but only one date as next date of hearing, i. e. 28th August, 2017, was noted down inadvertently. 11. Landlord, in his reply, has not denied the said fact, rather, in his reply, it is stated that so far as filing of application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC and listing of the same on 28th August, 2017 is concerned, the same is matter of record. 11. Landlord, in his reply, has not denied the said fact, rather, in his reply, it is stated that so far as filing of application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC and listing of the same on 28th August, 2017 is concerned, the same is matter of record. It is further stated in the reply that, however, the rent petition was listed for evidence of landlord on 25th August, 2017, which fact was duly in notice of the tenant as his counsel Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate, had appeared before the Rent Controller on 10th August, 2017. 12. As discussed above, it is apparent from the record that Mr. R. S. Thakur, Advocate, had given his no objection to newly engaged counsel. Therefore, plea of tenant about confusion of the next date of hearing on account of noting down the date as 28th August, 2017 is also possible particularly when different dates were given for recording evidence in the case and for consideration of the application. 13. From zimni orders also, produced by learned counsel for the landlord, it appears that in three zimni orders passed on 25th August, 2017, there is no reference of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of tenant, but there is only reference of listing the case for exparte evidence on 28th August, 2017. 14. No doubt, there is delay on the part of tenant for making prayer to permit him to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses after recalling them, but, at the same time, it is also noticeable that before closing the evidence of landlord, an application for setting aside the exparte order was filed and the same was decided in favour of tenant before proceeding further in the rent petition whereafter application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC was taken into consideration and decided. Undisputedly, after dismissal of application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, the petition was listed thrice for recording evidence of tenant on various dates and on those dates, tenant had never asked for permitting him to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses, however, it is also a fact that tenant''s evidence is yet to be recorded. 15. Undisputedly, after dismissal of application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, the petition was listed thrice for recording evidence of tenant on various dates and on those dates, tenant had never asked for permitting him to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses, however, it is also a fact that tenant''s evidence is yet to be recorded. 15. It is also evident from order, dated 28th August, 2017, that witnesses of landlord were not present during prelunch session, but, despite the fact that the tenant, though proceeded exparte on earlier occasion, had appeared in person and explained the reason for absence of his counsel, landlord was directed to produce his witnesses during postlunch session on the same day. Further, landlord''s witnesses were examined and though, the tenant was asked to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses in absence of his counsel, but, it was not possible for him being not an expert to perform the said function. 16. It is also apparent from the zimni orders that prior to approaching this Court, no endeavour was made on behalf of tenant before the Rent Controller on any date, even at the time of allowing his application for setting aside exparte order on 26th October, 2017, to permit him to examine the landlord''s witnesses. However, keeping in view the stage of the rent petition and also the principle that justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done coupled with the fact that it may be lapse on the part of counsel for choosing the stage of making prayer for permission to crossexamine landlord''s witnesses, I, balancing the rights of both the parties, am of the opinion that one opportunity to crossexamine the landlord''s witnesses, but, subject to payment of costs payable to the landlord besides bearing the cost of recalling the landlord''s witnesses, should be granted to the tenant for ends of justice. 17. Therefore, parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 26th March, 2018, with a direction to the Rent Controller to recall the landlord''s witnesses on the date(s) to be fixed before 13th April, 2018, enabling the tenant to crossexamine the said witnesses, who will be recalled by the Rent Controller in accordance with law, at the cost to be borne by tenant. Thereafter, the tenant shall conclude his evidence, as early as possible, on or before 11th May, 2018 by examining his witness(es) on date(s) fixed during the period for examining his witness(es), as he has already availed three opportunities for leading his evidence. Tenant has already paid 3,000/ as costs to the H. P. State Legal Services Authority during the pendency of this petition, therefore, he is directed to pay only 5,000/ on next date of hearing before Rent Controller as costs to the landlord in addition to the cost of summoning/recalling the landlord''s witnesses for crossexamination, which shall also be borne by him. 18. The present petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.