Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Sanjay Kumar & Anr on 5 September, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CR No.5294 of 2013(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR No.5294 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision:-05.09.2013
Naresh Kumar.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Sanjay Kumar & Anr.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Roopam Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner(tenant).
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
CM No.18382-CII of 2013 has been filed under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record Annexure P-8 as well as exemption from filing certified copy of the same.
For reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and document Annexure P-8 is taken on record.
CR No.5294 of 2013
Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, aggrieved against the order dated 23.08.2013(P-1) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.
In brief facts of the case are that petitioner(tenant), after closing of his evidence moved an application for production of additional evidence by way of summoning concerned official of Mahavir Institute of Mahajan Vinay 2013.09.21 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh CR No.5294 of 2013(O&M) #2# Technology, Chandigarh along with complete record pertaining to March 1991 to March 1992 qua Diploma Certificate issued by the institute to respondent(landlord) Sanjay Kumar so as to show that the said certificate issued by the institute is a procured document, not having any legal sanctity because of the reasons mentioned in the application.
Upon notice, respondent(landlord) averred that the application has been moved only to delay the proceedings as numerous opportunities were taken by the petitioner(tenant) to conclude his evidence and now at this stage i.e. the stage of final argument, the present application has been moved. It was further stated that the said evidence was available to the petitioner(tenant) at the time of leading of his own evidence as well as at the time of leading of evidence by the respondents(landlords). Thus prayer was made for dismissal of the application.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the application and aggrieved against the same the present revision has been preferred.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh has wrongly dismissed the application in question because the entire ground set up by the respondent(landlord) in his eviction petition is that he is technically qualified to start the business of TV/Radio repair in the demised premises, however, it is evident from his cross examination as well as the Diploma Certificate issued by the Mahavir Institute of Technology that the respondent(landlord) would have been around 13 years of age when the said diploma certificate was issued to him. Mahajan Vinay 2013.09.21 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh
CR No.5294 of 2013(O&M) #3# Thus it was argued that the said application ought to have been allowed by the learned Rent Controller as the same goes to the root of the matter.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is evident from the record as well as the application that it has nowhere been pleaded in the application for leading of additional evidence that proposed evidence was not within his knowledge at the time of leading of evidence despite due diligence. Furthermore, it is evident from the record that the petitioner(tenant) had availed several opportunities and had examined 8 witnesses but no effort was made by him to summon the witness proposed to be examined by way of present application. Even further, it is apparent that prior to moving of the present application, another application for additional evidence was moved by the petitioner(tenant) after closing of his evidence whereby he intended to summon the record from Estate office and place on record certain judgment. The said application was also dismissed and thereafter this application was moved. The conduct of the petitioner(tenant) cannot be said to be trust worthy so as to grant him the relief in the present revision . The argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) that at the time of issuance of the diploma certificate, the respondent(landlord) must be of 13 years of age has to be gauged from the evidence already led on record and the genuineness or non genuineness of the certificate can be looked into by the learned Rent Controller while deciding the impugned ejectment application. Thus, no ground is made out for allowing the present revision petition and quashing the order dated 23.08.2013.
Mahajan Vinay2013.09.21 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh
CR No.5294 of 2013(O&M) #4# No other point was urged before me during the course of arguments.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the application for additional evidence as well as in the revision, same are hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 05, 2013 Vinay Mahajan Vinay 2013.09.21 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at Chandigarh