Dharamvir vs Inder Pal

Hemant Gupta, J.—The tenant is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 11.11.2010, whereby an application filed by the tenant to examine hand-writing expert and for directing the landlord to give specimen hand-writing, was dismissed.

The landlord-Respondent has filed an eviction petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, inter alia, on the ground that he requires the premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant in evidence has produced bill and receipt Exs.R-1 and R-2 respectively to show that, in fact, the landlord is doing business in another shop in front of the Court complex and, therefore, the requirement of the landlord in respect of shop in dispute is not bona fide. The learned trial Court has declined such application, whereby the tenant has sought specimen signatures from the landlord to prove that such documents (Annexures R-1 and R-2) bear the signatures of the landlord.

Apart from the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court, I am of the opinion that the present application is only to delay the proceedings. The tenant was required to put the documents (Annexures R-1 and R-2) to the landlord, when he was in the witness-box. Having failed to do so, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence in respect of a document, to which the landlord was not confronted. Under the guise of such application, the Petitioner not only wants to delay the proceedings, but also wishes to open the evidence of the landlord again.

In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.