AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 236 wordsG.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 19, 1989 passed by the Rent Controller, Barnala allowing the application of the landlord for producing expert witness to depose regarding the condition of the shop in dispute after taking its photographs.
The facts :
The petitioner-landlord filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the shop in dispute. During the pendency of the application, an application was moved by the landlord for permission to inspect the shop by an expert to be produced by the landlord petitioner at the trial of the application for ejectment. In the application, a further prayer was made that the tenant-respondent be asked remove the plywood which he had fixed at the time of the inspection of the disputed shop by the expert witness. The Rent Controller allowed the application only to the extent that the expert witness could inspect the shop and take photographs. However, the other prayer for removal of the plywood was declined.
I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the trial Judge. The order appears to be just and calls for no interference.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Barnala on October 8, 1990.