Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs Raj Kumar And Others on 23 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Civil Revision No. 524 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 524 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.1.2014.
Ajay Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumar and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. G.S.Nahel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) whereby application moved by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property in question was owned by the Municipal Council. Therefore, it was very necessary to appoint a Local Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the shop in question belongs to the Provincial Government now transferred to Municipal Council.
In the present case, respondent has filed petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejecting of the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner moved an application for appointment of Local Commissioner wherein it was prayed as under:-
"Hence, it is prayed that the application may kindly be accepted and a Revenue Officer of the rank of Quango, Naib Tehsildar or Tehsildar may be appointed as Local Commissioner and he may be directed to visit the spot and to give his report to the effect that either the shop in Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.28 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No. 524 of 2014 (O&M) -2- dispute exists in Khasra no. 116//6 (4-17) or in some other land which belongs to Provincial Government and now transferred to Municipal Council Sangrur. Any other relief to which the respondent may be entitled be also granted."
Learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for appointment of a Local Commissioner as the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, parties are to lead their evidence in support of their respective pleas. Petitioner is required to lead evidence in support of his plea that Om Parkash was not the owner/landlord qua the property in question.
No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 23, 2014 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.28 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh