Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Som Nath Harish Chander vs Raj Rani And Another on 19 April, 2024

CR-2100-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052525 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
(118) CR-2100-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
M/s Som Nath Harish Chander ...Petitioner
Versus
Raj Rani and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE Present: Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

2h 3K 2 2 RITU TAGORE, J

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, in petition No.RP/533/2017, whereby an application filed by petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that respondent No.1, instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, against the petitioner and respondent No.2, for eviction from the demised premises i.e. a go-down consisting one room, along with one store and Miani as part of building No.B-VII-786, situated at Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana, alleging that her husband Vidyasagar, owner of the demised premises, rented out the shop to Walaiti Ram, respondent No.2, who sublet the same to petitioner No.1, without the consent and knowledge of the owner-landlord. Her husband filed eviction petition against both petitioner and respondent No.2 on arrears of rent and subletting. The revision bearing No.4522 of 2012 against the order of learned Appellate Authority, affirming the order of ejectment passed by learned Rent Controller is pending adjudication before this Court, wherein dispossession of the petitioner has been stayed vide order dated 02.08.2012 MANPREET SINGH 2024.04.23 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-2100-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052525 2 (Annexure P-3).

3. Learned counsel stated that respondent No.1 filed another instant ejectment-application against the petitioner and respondent No.2 on the ground of bona fide necessity of shop for use of her son Ramesh Kumar for setting up a business of selling milk products. The petitioner filed his written statement (Annexure P-4) denying relationship with respondent No.1 and her averments of requirement of premises for personal necessity.

4. Learned counsel stated that after completion of pleadings, respondent No.1 has already led her evidence and closed it. Thereafter, evidence of respondents had begun. The petitioner moved an application for summoning of witness and along with said application, also filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC read with Section 151 CPC for granting permission to appear as his own witness, after examination of other witnesses as detailed in application dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-7), but learned Rent Controller dismissed the same in an arbitrary manner vide order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-1).

5. Learned counsel stated that the observations of learned Rent Controller are completely perverse; whereas provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC are directory in nature. In 'The Amritsar Improvement Trust vs. Ishri Devi' 1979 PLR 354, Full Bench of this Court observed that Rules of procedure, has to be liberally construed to sub-serve the ends of justice. Learned counsel stated that in application (Annexure P-6), it is categorically pleaded that for the effective evidence of the petitioner, production of record by the summoned witnesses, prior to evidence of petitioner, is necessary. Learned counsel stated that learned trial Court, thus wrongly observed that petitioner gave no cogent reason for examination of other witnesses prior to his evidence.

CR-2100-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052525 3

6. Learned counsel stated that statement of witnesses is required to disprove the allegation qua subletting of premises. The said evidence is material to be led before the evidence of the petitioner, for putting his statement effectively. A prayer is thus made to allow the present revision by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-1).

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, which is extracted hereunder:-

"3A. Party to appear before other witnesses.

Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage."

9. Suffice to say, an ejectment-petition (Annexure P-2), filed by respondent No.1 against petitioner and respondent No.2, on ground of personal necessity and non-payment of house tax, is pending adjudication. The petitioner has to start his evidence, when moved application under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, seeking permission to examine other witnesses, prior to his recording of statement as a witness. The request has been declined by learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) by observing as under :-

"Respondent No.2 in his application has simply stated that examination of witnesses is required prior to his own evidence. No specific reasons have been mentioned as to why said witnesses are required to be summoned beforehand. No reasons as such are made out to allow the application under consideration. Resort to Order 18 Rule 3-A cannot be made as a matter of course.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Now to come upon CR-2100-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052525 4 18.03.2024 for evidence of respondent, subject to last opportunity."

10. In 'Messrs Kwality Restaurant vs. Satinder Khanna' 1979 PLJ 44, it is observed that procedural rule to be interpreted liberally and application under Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, seeking permission to appear as his Own witness, can be sought at any stage and if the Court finds any merit in the same, then the Court can allow it. In The Amritsar Improvement Trust (supra) in paragraph No.12, the Court observed as under :-

"12. Before parting with this judgment, however, a note of caution must be sounded. Holding that the aforesaid rule is directory and the permission may be granted at a later stage, is not to say that the mandate of the legislature in this context is to be easily disregarded or lightly deviated from. It is plain that as a normal rule the legislature requires the testimony of the party to be recorded first and the rational there is not far to seek. Apparently in order to prevent an easy deviation from the rule, it has been laid down that the court shall record its reasons for doing so. It is to be hoped that the trial Courts in whom primarily the discretion has been vested, would keep both the letter and the spirit of the rule in mind before according permission thereunder in exceptional circumstances, and not whittle the same down by allowing too easy and indiscriminate deviation therefrom."

11. In 'Bimla Rani and others vs. Jaspal Singh and others' 2018 (3) CivCC 365, Coordinate Bench of this Court observed provisions of Order 18, Rule 3A CPC makes it clear that there is no requirement of filing application in writing. The permission can be granted orally or by implication.

12. In revision petition, it is specifically pleaded that other witnesses are required to be examined to dispel the allegations of subletting laid by uanpreet singh Tespondent No.1. However, learned counsel could not deny that in present 2024.04.23 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-2100-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052525 5 ejectment petition (Annexure P-2) , in para No.4 ground of subletting has not been taken for the eviction of the petitioner. Rather, grounds of non-payment of house tax and personal necessity have been taken. However, it is an admitted fact that another petition on ground of subletting was filed against the petitioner and respondent No.2 and revision against the concurrent findings of ejectment against the petitioner, is pending before this Court.

13. In given facts, to the considered opinion of this Court, when ground of subletting has not been taken against the petitioner and respondent No.2, for their ejectment from the demise premises, the observation made by learned Rent Controller that no reason has been given for seeking such permission, seems justified. This Court when inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner, about the importance of the examination of witness mentioned in list (Annexure P-5), it was simply stated that the evidence was material to rebut the allegation of subletting made by the respondent No.1. As notice, ground of subletting has not been taken by landlady in present petition. In circumstances, declining the request of petitioner to examine him after the examination of other witnesses is defensible in the eyes of law.

14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, no interference is warranted in the order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the same is upheld. Accordingly, present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(RITU TAGORE) JUDGE April 19, 2024 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned --:: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANPREET SINGH 2024.04.23 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment