H.P. Khadi Aashram vs Gurcharan Sharma

Satyen Vaidya, J

Heard.

By way of instant petition, order dated 06.06.2023, passed by learned Rent Controller, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. in CMA CIS Registration No.89 of 2023 in Rent Petition No. 10-2 of 2013 has been assailed.

Petitioner herein is the tenant/respondent in proceedings for eviction initiated by the respondent/landlord before the learned Rent Controller.

After closure of evidence of parties, an application came to be filed on behalf of the tenant/petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to recall Shri B.C. Sharma, a witness of the landlord for re-examination on the point of map and technical report. Today, learned counsel for the tenant has placed on record a copy of the application moved before the learned Rent Controller for the aforesaid relief. Its contents reveal that the tenant had sought the recalling of above noted witness for the reason of getting certain clarifications.

It is evident from the contents of the application that by way of clarifications, which were intended to be sought, nothing new was to be discovered. It was averred that the witness Shri B.C. Sharma, had omitted certain facts in his report and for such purpose his recall as a witness was required.

The jurisdiction vested in the Court by Rule 17 of Order 18 is only for examining a witness after recall in case the Court finds it to be necessary for adjudication of the matter before it. In the instant case, learned Rent Controller has passed a detailed order and has exercised the discretion against the tenant by holding that the purpose for which the recall of witness was required was not genuine and in fact his recall was not necessary in the given facts of the case.

Witness Shri B.C. Sharma, admittedly was exposed to cross-examination by the tenant. There is nothing on record to suggest that the tenant did not have the material with it on which now the said witness was sought to be cross-examined by his recall. Even otherwise, from the tone and tenor of averments made in the application, it appears that the attempt was just to delay the proceedings of the case. It is also not the case of the tenant that learned Rent Controller had not afforded it with sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence. Since, the tenant wanted clarifications on certain technical aspects, it could have been easily done by the tenant by examining its own witnesses.

In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.