Shivam Telenet Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. Suresh Kumar and Another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2011 of the Rent Controller, U.T.,

Chandigarh, whereby his application for permitting him to lead additional evidence was rejected.

The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner contested the same

taking a specific stand that the landlord does not need the property in dispute for his personal necessity and in fact he is getting the premises

vacated to sell the same.

It is not in dispute before this Court that after framing the issues, both the parties were granted ample opportunities to lead evidence and after

availing many opportunities, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant closed his evidence. Even in the application for leading

additional evidence, the petitioner has not made out any ground to allow him to lead additional evidence. The averments made in the application

are totally vague. It has been said that his evidence was closed by his counsel without his knowledge and he wants to lead more evidence in

support of his case. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any complaint etc. against his lawyer. Even the details of the evidence sought to be led

has not been mentioned in the application for leading additional evidence. It could not be disputed that the case is at the fag end and in fact fixed

for arguments. No doubt the provisions of CPC are hand made for administration of justice, however, the same also cannot be used to promote

the abuse of process of law. No justification has been shown to allow the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the instant case.

Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The revision petition is dismissed.