JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. Power of attorney has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner herein is the alleged tenant, against whom ejectment petition under Section 20(2) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 has been filed by the landlords (respondents herein) on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and bonafide necessity. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as landlords and tenant. 3. The tenant, i.e. petitioner herein, in her reply (Annexure P-3) denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to her, the landlords wanted friendly loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which she and her husband were unable to pay. However, landlords agreed to take loan in monthly installments of Rs. 35-40,000/- per month and for the security purpose, they offered to hand over the possession of the demised house with the condition that in case, they failed to return the loan amount within 03 years alongwith interest, the loan amount so received by them shall be treated as earnest money. It was further claimed that the landlords had later on prepared a false document in the shape of agreement/rent note by taking advantage of the fact that the tenant did not know how to read and write the Punjabi script. 4. Following issues were framed on 03.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) by learned Rent Controller:- “1. Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent? OPP 2. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the tenancy premises? OPP a) On the ground of arrears of rent @ 38,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2019 alongwith interest @ 15% per annum, and on the ground of outstanding amount payable by respondent towards electricity bills and charges with respect to tenanted premises. OPP b) On the ground of bonafide necessity as demise premises are required by petitioner for use and occupation of their grandson Tej Kunwar Singh son of Amarjot Singh for his residential requirement. OPP 3. Whether the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from this court? PR 4. Whether the provision of section 4 of Punjab Ren Act 1995 are not fulfilled? OPR 5. Whether the petition is liable to be rejected for want of proper court fees? OPR 6. Relief.“ 5. OPP 3. Whether the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from this court? PR 4. Whether the provision of section 4 of Punjab Ren Act 1995 are not fulfilled? OPR 5. Whether the petition is liable to be rejected for want of proper court fees? OPR 6. Relief.“ 5. Later on, vide order dated 24.11.2023, following two additional issues were framed:- “5A Whether the alleged rent note dated 03.10.2018 is forged and fabricated as alleged by the respondent that petitioner got the signature of respondent without disclosing the contents of the rent note? OPR 5B Whether there is any loan transaction between the petitioner and respondent and her husband as alleged by the respondent? OPR” 6. Prior to framing of the additional issues, the landlords had closed their evidence in affirmative. They later on moved an application to lead evidence in rebuttal. Objections were raised by the tenant. Without hearing the objections of the tenant, the same were dismissed, at which tenant approached this Court by filing CR No.5141 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-13) directed the trial Court to dispose of the objections after hearing both the parties. Before those objections could be considered, the landlords sought to examine certain witnesses in rebuttal. He also wanted to examine one Jarnail Singh, who was produced before the Court. However, the affidavit tendered by said Jarnail Singh, was rejected by the Rent Controller by way of order dated 23.08.2024, at which landlords approached this Court by filing CR No.5491 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 set aside the order dated 23.08.2024 and directed the trial Court to consider the contention of the landlords, so as to examine Jarnail Singh as a witness alongwith the objections of the tenant against rebuttal evidence. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Rent Controller by way of the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) permitted the landlords to produce rebuttal evidence and thus, rejected the objections of the tenant. Learned Rent Controller also permitted to examine Jarnail Singh as a witness in rebuttal evidence by the landlords. 8. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Rent Controller by way of the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) permitted the landlords to produce rebuttal evidence and thus, rejected the objections of the tenant. Learned Rent Controller also permitted to examine Jarnail Singh as a witness in rebuttal evidence by the landlords. 8. Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel for the tenant (petitioner herein) that right to produce any evidence in rebuttal was not reserved by the landlords, when the issues were framed on 03.03.2021 and when they closed their affirmative evidence. It is further submitted that under the garb of producing evidence in rebuttal to the additional issues, the landlords cannot be allowed to produce any evidence in rebuttal to issue No.1, i.e. on the point of the relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties and that whatever evidence they wanted to lead they could do so in affirmative only. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. 10. As rightly observed by learned Rent Controller in the impugned order, though the relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties had been denied by the tenant and she pleaded loan transactions between the parties, but the issue as to whether the alleged rent note dated 03.10.2018 relied by the landlords was forged and fabricated, as was alleged by the tenant; and that whether the landlords had got the signatures of the tenant without disclosing the contents of the rent note, were framed only on 24.11.2023. Similarly, the issue regarding the alleged loan transaction between the parties was also framed on 24.11.2023. This assertion regarding forging and fabricating of the rent note and the loan transaction was made by the tenant and so while framing the issues on 24.11.2023, the onus to prove the same was placed upon the tenant. It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the said order dated 24.11.2023 was not challenged, so as to dispute the onus as placed upon the tenant. 11. It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the said order dated 24.11.2023 was not challenged, so as to dispute the onus as placed upon the tenant. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the additional issues had been framed on 24.11.2023 and onus to prove both the issues is upon the tenant, i.e. respondent before the trial Court, therefore, the landlords, i.e. petitioners before the trial Court have the right to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of those issues. 12. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. However, it is made clear that it will be for the trial Court to see that the evidence to be led by the landlords in the rebuttal evidence, is not beyond the scope of the rebuttal evidence to be led on the additional issues, which were framed by the Court on 24.11.2023. The said fact shall be considered at the time of final arguments.