KRISHNA KANTA Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Petitioner sued respondents for eviction on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub- letting. Respondents 2 to 5 claimed that they were partners of the firm of no. 1. Petitioner gave her evidence and on conclusion stated that she closed her affirmative evidence. A.R.C. held that she had given all her evidence and was not entitled to rebuttal. She then made an application saying that onus of claim of respondents 2 to 5 that they are tenants as partners was on them and she should be allowed to rebut after they close their evidence. Application was rejected and she moved High Court u/Art. 227.] Para 9 onwards judgement is :-

(2.) The instant case, however, is where the Controller had illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in closing the evidence of the petitioner in rebuttal. 10 Section 37 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, lays down the procedure to be followed by the Controller. Sub-section (2) of the said section envisages that subject to any rules that may be made under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Controller shall while holding an enquiry in any proceedings before it, follow as far as may be, the practice and procedure of a court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. Order 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein called 'the Code') prescribes what provision of the Code shall apply 10 Courts constituted under the provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887.

(3.) A perusal of Order 50 of the Code makes it clear that in a small cause suit issues are not required to be settled. The provisions of Order 18, except rules 5 to 12, regarding hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses, are applicable to small cause suit. Rule 3 of Order 18 envisages that "where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specifically on the evidence so produced by the party beginning ; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case".