Balwinder Singh vs Tarlok Chand

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-12-1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby he has dismissed an application of the landlord-Petitioner to produce additional evidence.

The Petitioner filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the Respondent from a shop on three grounds, namely, that the shop is lying closed meaning thereby that the Respondent has ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of four months ; that the Respondent has coverted the shop into a godown ; and that the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Petitioners led their evidence in the affirmative and closed their case. The Respondent in his turn produced evidence in rebuttal. It was at the stage when the evidence had been closed that the Petitioners sought to produce two more witnesses, namely, Mohinder Singh Brar. Agricultural Inspector, Bagha Purana, and Avtar Singh, Seed Development Officer, along with the record of Devinder Oil Store, Langeena. Mudki Road, Bagha Purana. This was to meet with the evidence produced by the Respondent to the effect that he has fertilizer licence in the name and style of Devinder Oil Store. The learned Rent Controller had held that the onus of proving of the three grounds for ejectment was on the Petitioners. They had since closed their evidence. The Respondent had also led evidence in rebuttal. The Petitioners, therefore, could not be allowed to fill in the lacunae in their evidence at such a late stage.

In my view the learned Rent Controller has rightly exercised his jurisdiction and there is no ground to interfere with this order. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on October, 10. 1988.