Bhagwant Singh vs Karam Chand and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—The landlord-petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, dated November 5, 1980 whereby his application under, Order XVIII rule 17-A of the CPC (hereinafter called the Code) to lead additional evidence was dismissed.

The landlord moved the application for additional evidence on the ground that earlier, he did not know whether his statement had been, recorded or not and do under a wrong Impression, his counsel closed the evidence without examining him as a witness in support of his ejectment application. This application was opposed on behalf of the tenant-respondent and the learned Rent Controller dismissed the same on the ground that the wrong impression of the landlord was no ground for allowing the additional evidence under Order XVIII rule 17-A of the Code.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. If under a wrong impression the counsel for the landlord closed the evidence without examining him in support of his ejectment application, it was a fit case where he should have been allowed to be examined later on. Even if the case was not strictly covered under the provisions of Order XVIII rule 17-A of the Code, the Rent Controller should have allowed the application on payment of costs unless, of course, he was of the opinion that it was not made for bona fide purposed. There is no such finding recorded by the Rent Controller.

Consequently this revision petition Succeeds and is allowed. The order of Rent Controller dated November 5, 1980, is set aside and the landlord is allowed to be examined as his own witness, on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. The parties through their counsel, have been directed to appear in the Court of the Rent Controller on December 16.